Legal Philosophy & the Meaning of Words - Government as a corporation

I think this goes in here, as this thread is about a basic abuse of legal terms due to an intentional or unintentional interpretation of legal philosophy..

I see this used a lot on ATS now, and its quite frightening as it represents a basic abuse of legal terminology. A lot of people on ATS are using the following statute to prove some diabolical body is in control of the United States and we have no rights:

(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;

Source: 176 U.S. Section 3002

The meanings I've seen proclaimed from this are quite shockingly wrong. I've seen everything from claiming this means we have no rights to, as previously mentioned, some diabolical unelected body is in control.

It seems as though people posting this and supporting this is part of a larger problem - not understanding legal philosophy. The term "corporation" in the law does not have the same meaning that it does in common day language. Although people often use the word "corporation" to mean the same thing as "big business," this is not the meaning in the law and it is not what it means when we say the US is a corporation.

Corporation simply means that there is a substantive legal entity which serves as a party in court. There are practical reasons for doing this. If I want to sue the government, exactly who do I sue? Who gets to decide? I can't very well haul the entire Congress, Senate, President, and Judicial branch into court. While some members of ATS may want to do this, the fact is if we did this we'd never get anything done as a country.

A corporation is simply a legal entity that is required in order ensure justice can be carried out effectively. Its a core component of legal philosophy - without a corporation, no one would ever work for government, because they could all individually be sued and brought to court endlessly.

But if you look at the threads that mention this, its always something more sinister than it really is. I am beginning to think its on purpose. ATS has a large base of people who follow the populist ideology, so any mention of corporation is going to appeal to them - even if no one has any idea that what were referring to is a legal entity, and not a corporation as a incorrect synonym for "big business."

I believe that you have the use of government as corporation confused with government been taken by corporate America.

That is two different things.

Most of the post that links in ATS government with corporation is about how our government is run by private entities that happen to be corporate America, their lobbyist and their lawyers.

This is all about the political angle of the conspiracy and to show how much corruption is running rampant in our political system.

Well I have a problem with the United States as a corporation because it means they aren't a sovereign government. It means this corporation of the United States is a house of cards that stands on nothing but this sort of mutual agreement between the states involved and Federal Government. The problem is that this mutual agreement has become implied, and that the United States corporation gets away with way too much based on this. And the idea that forms which is anyone who disagrees with the United States corporation is not patriotic. I'm gaining more understanding of your point of view on a philosophical level, but it's a corporation that ties us all together by a means that appears to be unsubstantive.

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe that you have the use of government as corporation confused with government been taken by corporate America.

The problem is the later is your populist belief in what America is, but is not supported by the former - even though everyone is trying to make that connection. You may understand the difference, but there are quite a few people on ATS who believe the fact that the government operates as a corporation is some sort of evidence for a wide variety of things which just aren't true.

There are quite a few threads I can find where the major "proof" that the government is a corporation (in the "corporation = business" synonym sense) is due to taking the statute I just cited and blowing it up beyond proportion.

Whether your believe governments and corporations are linked is a totally different matter - using statutes proclaiming the government is a corporation as proof for some larger conspiracy is invalid and is a basic disinformation tactic which is working well, since ATS populists are responding to it.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Novise
Well I have a problem with the United States as a corporation because it means they aren't a sovereign government.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Using the legal entity of a corporation has absolutely no impact on whether or not the government is sovereign. None.

Originally posted by NoviseIt means this corporation of the United States is a house of cards that stands on nothing but this sort of mutual agreement between the states involved and Federal Government. The problem is that this mutual agreement has become implied, and that the United States corporation gets away with way too much based on this.

No, it does not. Its a good thing, because all a legal corporation means is that you can actually sue the government without trying to find fault with a specific actor and trying to figure out who is supposed to be served, and that when you sue the government every elected official and bureaucrat isn't hauled into court.

I didn't say they are linked but rather taken over by corporate groups, in a nation that our politicians look and listen more to lobbyist to pass law is not doubt that our government works no for the people but for the entities that support what is now our system of government.

Sorry for derailing the thread into a political issue.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by marg6043]

lol, I will be the first to admit I am no lawyer, so I don't know. I haven't spent much time reading on this stuff, it's kind of hard to know where to start...

While it may be taking liberties and very simplistic to look at the federal government a corporation, I think the people that talk this way (even if they are incorrect on the legalities) still have something of a point. Is this issue not closely related to the idea of Federalism?

Also there are times when the legal system looks like a bit of a scam that only stands on rules it's own agents make - and the people involved make ridiculous amounts of money. People get mad at Exxon for profiting so much (I don't, to me the profit isn't the issue) but I wonder how much money the entire legal system makes and sucks out of us, it would be ridiculous.

Since we are here, why are there times a person cannot legally represent themselves because they haven't passed the bar exam? Are those stories about people declaring sovereignty in Federal courts and getting their cases dismissed true at all? What about people who go to court and get away with not paying their federal income taxes?

Originally posted by Novise
While it may be taking liberties and very simplistic to look at the federal government a corporation, I think the people that talk this way (even if they are incorrect on the legalities) still have something of a point. Is this issue not closely related to the idea of Federalism?

No, that is whats so shocking about it why this term is being misused. The government is a corporation, but it is a corporation because this is the only way to ensure that when someone sues the government, that we don't spend years arguing over who to bring to court.

Lets say the IRS accuses me of tax fraud and is wrong. Who gets to be brought to court over this? The entire IRS? Just the agents who made the accusation? How do I find out who they are? What about the congress, for letting the IRS do this? Who in Congress, just the people on the committees the deal with the IRS or everyone?

I may never know who actually made the mistake, since the IRS is a huge bureaucracy. Under normal circumstances, this would hurt my case and it would take a lot more effort on my part to win. However, because the government is a corporation, I can simply sue the U.S. government and the government has lawyers who represent the U.S. government as a corporation. Its legal practicality.

Each state and local government (larger local governments) is a corporation too. For the same reasons. Federalism still stands.

Since we are here, why are there times a person cannot legally represent themselves because they haven't passed the bar exam? Are those stories about people declaring sovereignty in Federal courts and getting their cases dismissed true at all? What about people who go to court and get away with not paying their federal income taxes?

In many places you can represent yourself, and in everyone I can think of where a normal citizen would end up charged for minor crimes, you always can. In reality, its usually not a good idea to do so - the law is complex, why in the world would you want to try to navigate it yourself when if your charged with something criminal and you can get a free one if you can't afford one?

Yes, the stories about people declaring "sovereignty" in federal court are simply made up to appeal to conspiracy theorists. I mean you could do it, and everyone would look at you like your nuts - because you are. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory, its that you as a citizen are subject to the laws of the land. You can declare whatever you want, your still subject to them. For example, I have the right to declare I only answer to the Queen of England in court, and they would put it in the court record. Then they would continue on with the trial, after thinking I am crazy.

Also there are times when the legal system looks like a bit of a scam that only stands on rules it's own agents make - and the people involved make ridiculous amounts of money. People get mad at Exxon for profiting so much (I don't, to me the profit isn't the issue) but I wonder how much money the entire legal system makes and sucks out of us, it would be ridiculous.

I think you are referring to lawyers instead of the court system. The court system doesn't make any money, its a net loss business. But there are no rules that the judicial system makes up. There is always a precedent, which some people may disagree with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have posted the refernce to the US being a corporation, and never understood it to mean anything other than what it is. A legal straw-man. State governments are corporations because they are franchises. YOU are a corporation. Incorporated as collateral against the national debt, to the tune of about a half million dollars a head.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


I am inclined to agree with you. Even cities and small towns are incorporated, unless they have a population of like 50 people. There has to be a legal entity which is representative of the government as a collective.

Today "corporation" is one of those buzzwords used to just rile people up, like "gas guzzler" or "big business". It's just something that is popular to rail against from your office chair and keyboard.

reply to post by sc2099


Exactly...Ive seen all kinds of posts drawing on the "evils" of the word "corporation," and people use the word to make all sorts of claims about the law that are just wrong. ATS users go along with it, being railing against "corporations" is trendy. And unfortunately, it seems its only the minority of ATS users that care to look up what corporation actually means.

Well truly, thanks for filling me in. Not much else to say, I didn't know anything on the subject but those were my perceptions. I know it may seem cut and dry in some instances but it really doesn't seem that way to me at least. This sort of thing helps though. So I'll let this sink in a bit and check up on it later. I'm here to listen and learn, so thankyou.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


You are a natual person. You are not an atificial person. All government and banking documents refer to you as an artificial person without your consent or should I say through TACIT consent (if you did not object to it,
you agree to it) or if you did'nt say no you said yes with out saying yes.
Here in Canada Includes is another interesting legal term. If in a statute it reads eg motor vehicle act (not word for word) An accident is a collision between two parties BLAh BLAH... then near the end of the diffinition of accident it reads an accident INCLUDES intentional collisions(through Incluslo unis est exclusio alterius). This means every accident was intentional and the courts are only dealing with parties that have confessed to intentional collisions because you've signed your liscence. This is only one of many examples of the term includes within statutes. Look up includes in blacks , It says to confine within,attain,shut up, contain, inclose....... then read the definition following includes in blacks. It's Incluslo unis est exclusio alterius- The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

Here are the three different levels of status you will have seen all three likley in your travels through life so far. followed by how you contract with them.

John Doe - Capitis Diminutio Minima

The lowest or least comprehensisive degree of loss of status.This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.

It happened upon the arrogation (pride) of a person who had been his own master (surjuris) ( of his own right, not under any legal disability)

It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

________________________________________________________________________________

You are a soveriegn a country of your own under CD minima until you "plug in" to the legal system or social contract ie Bill of rights (Canada)
________________________________________________________________________________

John DOE - Capitis Diminutio Media

A lesser or medium loss of status this occured where a man loses his rightsof citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE - Capitis Diminutio Maxima

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occured when a man's conditionwas changed from one of freedom to one of bondage,
when he became a slave . It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

________________________________________________________________________________

Rules are made to be boken however,

Federal interpretations act common names,

#38. The name commonly applied to any country , place , body, corporation, society, officer functionary, person, party or thing means the country..(same as former list)..party or thing to which the name is not the formalor extended designation thereof.

So.. the formal name formation dos'nt matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if it's a natural or artificial person you must find the source of creation of the name. OK?
_________________________________________________________________________________

Joinder of a natural and artificial person

What is a Joinder?

Joinder - Joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.

How must occur?

Voluntary , Unconstrained by interferance unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on ones self. Proceeding from the free and unrestricted will of the person.

Why must it be Voluntary?

Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all there forms.

How can it occur?

TACIT

Tacit consent is consent iferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an oppurtunity to forbid or refuse.

or if you did'nt say no you said yes.

Tacit Acceptance - In cival law a tacit acceptance of an inheritance (position) takes place when some act is done by the heir which nessesarily supposes his intention to accept and which he would have no right to do, but in his capacity as heir (person)

Anyone who tries to tell capitalization in insignificant is either a liar or just dos'nt know any better and in some cases both.


There is also a hoax floating around the web that everyone seems to be eating up about Blacks Law Dictionary as being a hoax that was started in april. I will provide a copy of the original one started in 2003.

Black's Law Dictionary Revealed as Hoax
Filed under:Manmade Law

May 28, 2003 - 11:59


Black's Law Dictionary Revealed as Hoax
Filed under:Manmade Law

May 28, 2003 - 11:59


Montreal, PQ (Reuters) - Sarah Medhurst (nee Black) shocked journalists and legal scholars at a press conference held at the Black family estate Monday when she revealed that Black's Law Dictionary, a highly regarded legal reference text, was originally written as a joke by her eccentric great grandfather Henry Campbell Black.

Medhurst appeared unapologetic, suggesting that the Black family had never tried very hard to keep it a secret. "Have any of you actually taken the time to read it?” she asked, flipping open the renowned text.& nbsp; “Look at page 840 for instance. 'John-a-Nokes'? Or how about page 347? 'Correality – the quality or state of being correal." She then cast a challenging look around the room.

Medhurst admitted that the entire Black family has participated in the century-long ruse, working together to generate content for the ever-expanding text. She credits her Uncle Bertrand with developing one of their most successful filler techniques: "We created more than 30 new entries just by using the word 'actual'. Actual agency - see agency. Actual allegiance - see allegiance. Actual authority - see authority. And on and on - you get the idea."

Medhurst admits that the family started to get lazy in later editions, at times resorting to stealing terms from other dictionaries. "I remember one time my brother pulled 'Le Roi' (literally: "the king") right out of his French-English dictionary to meet the deadline for the 5th edition while on a three-week ski trip in the French Alps." She claims the ploy has been used sparingly, however, and that the family put a stop to the practice when her brother started bringing the Official Scrabble Dictionary to editorial meetings.

Henry Campbell Black had never intended - or even imagined - that his dictionary would become the authoritative source for legal terminology. "My great granddad had actually written the text for an upcoming firm skit night", Medhurst explains. "It was his way of showing how convoluted and, well, pompous the legal profession had become." The dictionary became an instant hit, however, and Henry Black's comedic intentions went unnoticed. When the money started to roll in, Black elected to pursue a highly lucrative career in legal publishing instead of becoming a marginally talented prop comic.

When asked why the family is revealing the fake after all this time, Medhurst stated that they had grown tired of living a lie, and were genuinely concerned that the universally accepted legal lexicon "is actually just a bunch of made-up gibberish." The family is asking that lawyers and students alike immediately dispose of any editions of Black's Law Dictionary into the nearest trash receptacle or recycle bin.

This same story was on a yahoo group in 2003 that had a thread discussing the same big announcement, FYI the word correal that Sarah Medhurst supposedly uses to prove the law dictionary a hoax is actually a legal term from Roman law meaning
"In both roman and modern law, there may be more than one creditor or
debtor in the same transaction. The obligation of co-creditors or co-
debtors is known as correality.
Joint or correal obligations are found in many modern systems of law,
such as the anglo-American, French, Spanish."

quoted from a book called "Roman Law in the Modern World." There is also a book called the Systematic and "Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code" which references correality.


here's a link to it

use the search to find correality



The hoax is a 2003 hoax . . .originally found at a satirical website. See discussion tab at Wikipedia.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]







Mod Edit: Link format - Jak

[edit on 2/7/08 by JAK]

But if you look at the threads that mention this, its always something more sinister than it really is. I am beginning to think its on purpose. ATS has a large base of people who follow the populist ideology, so any mention of corporation is going to appeal to them - even if no one has any idea that what were referring to is a legal entity, and not a corporation as a incorrect synonym for "big business."

reply to post by ALightinDarkness



Legal maxim
OmnisPrvatio est homo sed non vicissim

translation,

Every person is a man but not every man is a person

The duality of person,
Blackstone's commentaries Page 123

"Persons also are divided by the law into either natural or artificial."

Natural Persons are such as God of nature formed us.

Artificial Persons are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government which are called corporations or body politics.

The word corporation was used long before we had actual incorprated companies. It was used simply to identify an artificial person.

Anyone not familiar with Blackstone Commentaries should know he wrote them because he noticed the people of England were forgetting their rights.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]

substantive legal entity which serves as a party in court

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


I think your trying to say "artificial person"

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I mean you could do it, and everyone would look at you like your nuts - because you are

Oh my, those sounds like the words of a disinfo technician


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]

My goodness, you can't even do anything other than post previously debunked sewage on this? Are you even reading what your stating?

The legal definition of a corporation is 1 thing and 1 thing only - it is used to represent someone (usually a group of someones) which takes on legal liability in place of trying to find direct fault or blame with one actor in a larger organization:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

There is no need to make up conspiracies about it. Which is exactly what has occurred. I understand why - its an attempt to draw on peoples populist hatred of corporation when we used it a synonym for "big business." Unfortunately, there is no actual legal backing for the stuff that's been made up.

You show a basic misunderstanding (or your doing it on purpose to spread disinformation) about what a "legal person" actually means. In fact, I already addressed it in the first post. Since your only interested in propaganda and not a discussion, I'll shorten it for you: Legal entities are indeed fictional persons, in that they have no rights but represent something which legal action can be brought against:

I cannot bring legal action against my toaster for burning me. The toaster is an inanimate object. I must bring a lawsuit against the company who made the toaster - which I COULD NOT DO IF THE COMPANY WAS NOT A CORPORATION. I cannot bring a lawsuit against the person who made the toaster, because I have no way of knowing who made the error.

That's all it is. That is all it will ever be. It is sad that the status of basic legal education is so low in this world that this kind of topic even has to be addressed.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Well, on the intarwebz, CorpGov is slang for the merging interests/entity of our Government and Corporations hell bent on profits at any cost. The Government seems intent on executing the Will of Corporations over the Will of it's tax paying Citizens.

So yes, it is sinister and I am proud to rail against it.

No, actually, that is just populist propaganda. But is an EXCELLENT example of why people buy into the legal conspiracies - they are so blinded by the propaganda they never stop to do the research.

The reality that the populist shills don't like to hear, of course, is that corporations as a legal entity protect consumers. Without them, I would be completely unable to bring legal action against any company without jumping through a ton of hoops (being able to find the actually actor(s) guilty of wrong doing, etc.). If my toaster catches my house on fire, unless I can find out where the defect is at the company (good luck doing that, its not like the company is going to let me in to look around), I'm screwed unless the business is a corporation or has equivalent legal person status.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]