No, that’s a pile of word salad which appears nowhere in the Congressional Record, and which, moreover, doesn’t remotely come close to describing the incorporation of Washington DC. As best I can tell, that text was developed by a pair of sovereign citizens (or similar crackpots) in an (unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to persuade a bankruptcy court of an idiosyncratic theory.
This is the actual text of the legislative act incorporating DC, for reference.
Can you back up the claim that the United States has trustees? Why won't you answer the question?
Grow the fuck up loser, fake attorney - lol. You got caught being a lying moron.
Nope. Not only do I have a JD, I got it from one of the best schools in the country. If you can provide proof that the United States has trustees, I'll dig up my diploma or law school ID card and figure out how to obscure the identifying information.
My, you're getting upset. That's obviously because you don't want to defend your belief that the United States has trustees.
Why don't you need proof to believe that the United States has trustees?
You can't back up that claim, can you?
I'm not avoiding the issue - you are. You are asking for proof that an assertion is not true, when the burden of proof is on those making the assertion to establish that it is true. I'm not even a liberal. I'm very much a Trump supporter; I'm just not delusional. Once again, why are you unconcerned with proving that the United States has trustees? Is that something you accept without any proof?
Without proof, it's a "bullshit theory", in your own words, right?
Huh? I didn't make the original claim; the original, positive claim is that the United States does have trustees. It needs to be proven that they exist, not that they don't exist.
Do you believe that the United States has trustees? Why have you asked none of the people asserting that it does for proof?
You'd know this if you were an actual attorney and not some fake ass troll who knows more about Mario World and gay porn then they do US law or the Constitution. FAKE
As unhappy as it may make you, I am in fact an actual attorney. The claim that has been advanced is that the United States has trustees. There is no default assumption that it does. Can you provide proof that these trustees exist?
It sounds awfully like you can't. Is that an accurate statement?
No, I don't want you to take my word for it - I want you to interrogate the evidence. Why won't you answer these questions?
Do you have any evidence these trustees exist? Can you direct me to something in the Congressional Record establishing them? After all, were they to exist, they'd either be mentioned in the Constitution, or in the Congressional Record.
Since you're so concerned with proof, you presumably have proof that these trustees exist, right?
I'm entirely uninterested in doxxing myself, particularly on this website. I notice you ignored this part of my post:
Do you have any evidence these trustees exist? Can you direct me to something in the Congressional Record establishing them? After all, were they to exist, they'd either be mentioned in the Constitution, or in the Congressional Record.
Go on. After all, it should be incredibly easy for you to prove that these trustees exist if they in fact do. You presumably believe this on the basis of some actual evidence, right?
Nah, I'm a lawyer; I'm reacting to an utterly nonsensical claim. Claiming that the United States has trustees is like claiming that you have trustees; it's not cognizable.
Do you have any evidence these trustees exist? Can you direct me to something in the Congressional Record establishing them? After all, were they to exist, they'd either be mentioned in the Constitution, or in the Congressional Record.
Go on.
You want me to prove that the United States doesn't have 'trustees'? Why don't you try proving that it does? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Sovereign states do not have trustees, much as rocks, electricity, and games of Monopoly don't have trustees. There's nothing indicating the US does have trustees, or evidence of their existence, or indications as to their role, or, frankly, capacity for them in the US legal system.
Municipal corporations occasionally do have trustees, but that's terminologically equivalent to a city or town council; they're elected positions that do not connote 'ownership', which doesn't exist in relation to municipal corporations.
Are there many more cases of Lady Gaga being involved with all the presidents? She’s a prominent entertainer; it’s not that strange that she sang at an inauguration and posed with presidents at an event (as others did separately at the same event).
I have no idea what half the claims being made actually are, but the United States of America has been a single continuous sovereign corporate entity since its foundation. Nothing happened in 1871, 1913, 1914, 1917, or at any other time. The website you link to makes claims that are either false or ‘not even wrong’, from the standpoint of the US legal system.
Like, if this is what things hinge on, you’re definitely going to wind up disappointed.
A source for what? The claim that DC is under US jurisdiction and that London is under British jurisdiction? Sure; see the incorporation documents for DC here, and observe the ongoing state of affairs in which US law is enforced in DC in US courts.
Incorporation is always subject to the law of the incorporating jurisdiction. There's nothing strange about DC in that regard; it's a perfectly standard US municipal corporation that happens to be set up as a federal district.
Actually it isn’t what? Unprecedented?