The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (AKA incorporated, or 'made corporeal') by an act of law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation created by the Constitution is "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (AKA incorporated, or "made corporeal") by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation created by the Constitution is "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (AKA incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation created by the Constitution is "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation created by the Constitution is "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. I'm not entirely sure, but this may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running, or act as agents of, the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. This may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal fallout ("Legal" means "within the framework and Jurisdiction of applicable law".) A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. This may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist until some specific legal system is used to create them. At the moment that some sovereign entity admits their existence within the legal framework, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal (within the framework of applicable law) fallout. A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. This may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits (what people usually think "corporation" means). But there are also, non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, Foundations, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist, then, within the structure of the legal system used to create them, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal (within the framework of applicable law) fallout. A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. This may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.

The first link in that thread goes to the articles of Incorporation for the United States Corporation Company, which is a company that helps to create corporate entities within the United States and acts as agent for them. It is NOT "The United States as a Corporation." That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, but it is not the fuckery people espouse it as. Anyone who actually reads the articles of incorporation can see that straight up. It has no capacity within it's articles of incorporation to serve as a governing body. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH the United States as some sort of new corporate entity.

To say "a corporation" means an entity "that is brought into existence (incorporated) by law." There are many types of "corporations." There are for profits, non-profits, non-governmental organizations, 501(3)(c)s, governmental corporations, etc. All of these do not exist, then, within the structure of the legal system used to create them, they become "incorporated," i.e. they become a legal entity. This legal entity then serves as a legal shield for the people who take actions in the name of the corporation, and any potential legal (within the framework of applicable law) fallout. A corporation, no matter the type, has no meaning outside of the framework of the law that created it.

The original United States, which was incorporated by a document we call the "Constitution" is a "governmental corporation." The purpose of this corporation is to sue, or be sued, in lieu of the people who are running the corporation.

The Act of 1871 created a new corporate entity for the district of Columbia. This may have been a violation of the Constitution, which stated that the area of D.C. was specifically set aside to be under the control of the United States Government (the legal name of this 1787 corporation we call "The United States of America" AKA the USA). The new D.C. corporation (a municipal corporation) was set up such that the President of the USA (a governmental corporation) was also the CEO of the D.C. corp. The Senate, House, and Judicial branches of the USA were also set up as the Board of Directors, and Legal branches of the D.C. Corp.

Thus anything that goes on in D.C. under the name of D.C. corp could be easily misconstrued as going on under the name of USA, and vise versa, because all the same people are involved in the same capacity.

I don't know what specific actions may be fuckery there, if any, but this is what the Act of 1871 set up. A new government, that only applies to the District of Columbia.

The United States Corporation Company is a red herring. People need to appreciate that, because the entire argument falls apart on that point.