I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govt's" or indeed, "The Crown's" claims to be a body corporate (a fictional entity defined within a specific system of law). It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which legal complaints (suits) could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate, and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)

I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govts" or indeed, "The Crowns" claims to be a body corporate (a fictional entity defined within a specific system of law). It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which legal complaints (suits) could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate, and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)

I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govts" or indeed, "The Crowns" claims to be a body corporate (a fictional entity defined within a specific system of law). It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which legal complaints (suits) could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)

I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govts" or indeed, "The Crowns" claims to be a body corporate (a fictional entity defined within a specific system of law). It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which complaints could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)

I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govts" or indeed, "The Crowns" claims to be a body corporate. It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which complaints could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)

I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.

Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes

If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.

In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govt" or indeed, "The Crown." It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which complaints could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.

As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.

Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."

Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.

For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.

In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.

Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.

As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)