I've heard this -- what I am considering to be a rumor at this point -- a few times, on radio shows like Alex Jones's and Gary Franchi's, and even read about it on obscure websites, and I have to admit it does seem to have the air of potential plausibilty. I'm wondering if any of the fine, well-read Individualist minds on this network have heard anything or have any information about this. The story, from what I've gathered, is something like this:
At some point in the early 20th Century, the U.S. Congress made some sort of secret, signed agreement with international bankers, which effectively transformed the U.S.government into a Washington D.C.-based corporate entity, and a bankrupt one at that. At that point the U.S. Constitution was also changed, formally from "the Constitution for the united States," to "the Constitution of the UNITED STATES." The changing of the words "for" to "of," and also the changing of the lettering, is said to represent the changing of the document from a legal one to a corporate one. It is said that the function of the U.S. government, and particularly the Courts, is to enforce the terms of the bankruptcy.
Sounds somewhat conspiratorial. I haven't heard of such a thing though, no.
Not as odd as this however:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=553
Yes, I know a number of people riding that train.
The implication is that having any contractual relationship with the Corporation of The United States of America means that you are no longer a sovereign citizen in the state in which you reside. Contractual relationship stems from having a Social Security number, paying taxes, vehicle licences, drivers licence or voting. You as a person and what you produce is owned and controlled by the corporation. All property is owned and controlled by the corporation. This is (purportedly) the basis for property taxation - both real estate and personal property.
Individuals who subscribe to these theories 'withdraw' from the corporation and seem to exist outside of federal or state laws. They submit some forms to cancel their Social Security number, request a refund of Social Security funds paid in and turn in their drivers licences. 'Driving a vehicle' is supposedly a commercial act requiring licence (permission) by the corporation whereas 'travelling in a personal method of coveyance' is a human right which cannot be denied nor resticted by licencing. They run around with a hand-written sticker in the window of their 'method of conveyance' citing the code or public law from which they claim sovereignty and obeying traffic laws is 'optional'.
There is also supposedly a method to own real estate property which is free and clear of any government claim thus negating the requirement to pay real estate or property tax - something to do with a 'Freeholder Title'. This grants (in my limited understanding) sole and sovereign ownership when title is cleared back to royal concession and paid for in gold or gold-backed dollars.
It is all such a twisted web... All I can say about the whole thing is that you better have lots of time & money to spend in court and in jail - or else have nothing that they can take away from you and just live off the land and the odd job you can pick up here & there. It sounds like the perfect existence for those who espouse (as I understand it from reading here) - agorism.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
....wow, first time I ever had a post requiring review. Must have typed a couple of 'trigger' words.....
requiring review... does that mean that someone felt this post was inappropriate?
Its just something that I heard that disturbed me. I realize that it seems over-the-top "conspiratorial." But if someone would have come up to me two years ago and said: "That paper in your wallet is created by an insidious cartel for the purpose of siphoning our wealth to Wall St. and Washington DC." I would have thought them a paranoid schizophrenic.
And having read enough in the past year to know that the history my public school textbooks taught me had been sanitized for statist indoctrination, and that the sanitizing and indoctrinating is done on purpose to keep people from becoming cognizant of how badly they're being fleeced and just how much of their liberty has been lost.
So excuse me if I now refuse to shut my mind off and just dismiss out-of-hand any information that might come off as "conspiratorial." I brought that question up at this forum because I had perceived initially that the people who post here are generally well-read and seem to have a handle on concepts and historical contexts that you don't find other places -- not the type of people to carry a priori assumptions that because something is perceived to be sinister conspiratorial behavior by the state, it must be the product of paranoid delusion. Sorry if it offended anyone.
Steve,
You offended nobody. As it so happens, I am *very* familiar with the concept you have discovered on the Internet; you have inadvertently stumbled upon what is colloquially called the "sui juris / Common Law" pro se movement. As an attorney, I have done a great deal of rigorous thought and research on the premises of this Common Law "movement," which is a kind of disorganized, fluctuating group of individuals who vary by type, ideas and circumstance, but who nonetheless have a common belief in some form of secret law that has usurped the "true law" in today's legal system. I will post more this evening, but the short answer to your question is definitely not, and even if there were some shadowy agreement among some political and banking elites back in the day, it would be as meaningless, non-binding and nonsensical (with respect to public governance) as an agreement among mafia families on how to rule society.
Bankruptcy has no meaning outside of statute, other than to describe the general state of being unable to pay one's debts (a synonym of insolvent). A State cannot declare bankruptcy in an formal legal sense, unless pursuant to a treaty or other formal legal document. But even then it would be a legal fiction. The US conventionally went "bankrupt" when it abrogated the gold standard in various steps.
More fundamentally, the entire "Common Law" paradigm implicitly rests on erroneus metaphysical assumptions. I will write further this evening, but until then, a good starting point for insight is to understand that all laws are de facto, as are all governments. Thus, the question as to whether courts somehow all secretly enforce a different kind of "law" due to some de jure private bankruptcy is an invalid question. Only the natural law can be considered metaphysically real and de jure (morality, ethics, Austrian a priori observations on reality).
You may be focusing on the less technical factual side, which is that somehow the same core of elites, and their successors, have had this secret agreement to which they are faithful and have somehow caused, directly or indirectly, the court system to use this secret agreement as the law of the United States (thus the UNITED STATES). Perhaps the best way of dismissing this out of hand is this (other than the sheer unreality of such an endeavor): there is NO need for such an agreement!
All government is de facto (the only "de jure" coercive acts are those justified by consent or by non-consenting authority acting prudently under natural law / Austrian principles / traditional customs tied to the former two). The Courts haven't started applying a new form of metaphysical law in place of the old metaphysical law. There is no old metaphysical law. The Constitution has no metaphysical status, except for those who consented to be under it in 1776, and then only insofar as it would be interpreted via its original meaning for ordinary persons in ordinary communication (Randy Barnett has done great work in showing how any other theory is bunk). During the rise of the legal realism movement in the 20th century, judges merely began to disregard old theories of interpretation, which were admittedly metaphysical in their premises, and simple apply new, often arbitrary theories, where to even call such theories a form of interpretation would even be a stretch. There was no need to "hoodwink" America and secretly set up some netherworld corporation to replace America with. These are all fictions. It's just a game.
What does it mean, metaphysically, if a judge violates the Constitution in a ruling? Does he need to operate under some secret law that quietly abrogates the constitution in order to violate the Constitution? Of course not---the Constitution isn't some magical chain that binds a judiciary to operate in such a manner. Instead, judges decided, in the spirit of John Marshall, that the law is what the Courts say it is.
More on this later if you care to hear it...
Steve Bachman: At some point in the early 20th Century, the U.S. Congress made some sort of secret, signed agreement with international bankers, which effectively transformed the U.S.government into a Washington D.C.-based corporate entity, and a bankrupt one at that.
At some point in the early 20th Century, the U.S. Congress made some sort of secret, signed agreement with international bankers, which effectively transformed the U.S.government into a Washington D.C.-based corporate entity, and a bankrupt one at that.
American democracy turned government into corporations a few centuries ago, and thats as close to a compliment as democracy is going to get from me.
Corporations aren't evil, government created privileges that empower them are. Strike the root of evil, not one of its many branches.
Peace
bonaventure--
I would care to hear more, thanks. I will say I agree 100% with what you say, that jurists of the 20th Century clearly assumed an authority to "interpret" the Constitution, in a way that defies basic principles of the Rule of Law -- and it didn't require any sevret agreement for them to do so.
The theory I asked about in this post was discussed at length on a radio show I was listening to on WTPRN, and the guy discussing it seemed very convinced of his conclusions. I can't remember all the little bits of "evidence" he had, but I will say that I came away thoroughly unconvinced
The only thing that bothers me, and thus left that small thread of nagging suspicion hanging in my mind, is the fact that our federal government has been party to the systematic fleecing of the American people since the passage of both the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment "Income Tax" Acts pf 1913, both of which combined basically boil down to a partnership between the State and a banking cartel, to systematically rob the people. We are compelled by law to trade in a vicious paper currency that siphons our purchasing power away to Wall St., it is blatantly unconstitutional, and the courts have upheld the process. This is what makes me suspicious that the courts are party to the same agenda.
I came across this assertion as well, but it claimed thatthe U.S. became a coporation in the late 19th century, after the civil war, when we probably were bankrupt. What happened in the early 20th was the creation of the Federal Reserve, which, as I'm sure you know, gave a bank the power formerly held by Congress to print money.
My only concern is that if the dollar collapses, the banks and corporations are going to start buying up everything once run by the government, i.e. roads, water supply, the postal service, the state of New York, Kansas, Texas, etc. Then we will have become a corporation, if we're not one already.
measles:My only concern is that if the dollar collapses, the banks and corporations are going to start buying up everything once run by the government, i.e. roads, water supply, the postal service, the state of New York, Kansas, Texas, etc. Then we will have become a corporation, if we're not one already.
I wish that would happen/
I do not believe that the US Government is a bankrupt corporation. The owners would have liquidated a long time ago. The Federal Governments has an unfunded liability for old folks alone above 80trillion. That is 4 years of GDP!!!! Add in the military and ever expanding law enforcement and the unfunded liability jumps to over 100 trillion. GM doen't even have that kind of debt load.
Strange, I get the same thing from the TN Secretary of State's Web site. There's one for the United States of America (ID# 0440426). It also gave an address to a place in a small town to the northeast of Chatanooga that doesn't seem to exist, according to MapQuest's aerial photo option. Filed for charter January 23, 2003...
Several cities also have listings, possibly even all (and the state itself appears to have three,) but the Secretary of State's Web site is poorly designed and won't list more than 50 search results at a time.
Even if all this has to do with some obscure and/or meaningless federal law, one has to admit that it is a little creepy.
By the way, that statement for the Federal Reserve Corporation on the DE state government's Web site is priceless. "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING."
It seems to me like these are simply placeholders, so that nobody can create a corporation called the IRS, and then, for example, steal cheques sent to the IRS and cash them in, or alternatively make fake checks and have people come running to the IRS for their money. This seems like what happened in 1989 when a bunch of guys created USA, inc, followed by Social Securty, inc, to try to do these scams, but were obviously caught. The Fed and IRS ones were obviously created to prevent this from happening. Far more reasonable explanation, especially as this information is publicly available.
So then what explains some entities being created in 1913 and 1933, and others, such as USA inc, being created as late as 1989? What happened in 1989?
Conspiracy nonsense.
Government has the guns, while corporate America, bankers and all, does not. Government may serve special interests when it suits it to do so, but ultimately it doesn't bow to anyone. Guns beat money, every time. Thats why it can be totally insolvent and just keep right on functioning - who is going to really try to collect on the loan?
djlogiq: So then what explains some entities being created in 1913 and 1933, and others, such as USA inc, being created as late as 1989? What happened in 1989?
I live in Delaware. Some of the adresses of those corporations are a five minute drive away from me.
Steve Bachman: I live in Delaware. Some of the adresses of those corporations are a five minute drive away from me.
Do you know what, if anything, is at these addresses?
ssdded: Do you know what, if anything, is at these addresses?
Not at the moment, but I do intend to check it out very soon. I'll let you know when I do.
jamesoreilly: Why are most cities incorporated? What does this mean?
Why are most cities incorporated? What does this mean?
From what I could read, incorporation is a legal term which has conditions applied, usually based on population size. Incorporation gives a city a bit more autonomy from state and county government bodies. Cities are usually part of a county, and in some cases are also a county.
Example: Philadelphia, PA is the city and the county; however, Pittsburgh, PA is the city, but the county it exists in is Allegheny County.
Incorporation is also not limited to cities. Towns and boroughs are also incorporated entities. It's not a very complicated issue, but there is a lot written on it, so researching and reading are a bit tedious. (Lots of different authors writing basically the same thing.)
Hope that helped some.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
I've come across that a number of times online, too, usually in researching various aspects of the income tax and tax laws.
Here's an essay on the subject that you might find helpful: An Investigation into the Meaning of the Term "United States"
Do your own research on the validity of any of the claims or arguments in the document, of course. There are a number of other ones out there that have similar or supplemental material on the subject. This is pretty far down the rabbit hole in terms of conspiracy theory and secret history of the US.
And I don't think there's any question of whether the United States is bankrupt at this point. But, is it a corporation put together as described? I'm not 100% sold on that yet.
Hello Everybody, and my apologies for raising this dead threat again :)
Anyway, This website looks like a "serious" page to discuss this interesting question.
USC (United States Code) Title 28 § 3002: Definition (15) states: (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR (h) states: (h) Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
Looks to me like the US is indeed a corporation located in the District of Columbia.
Also, take a look at these pages about the subject:The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation! or The Bankruptcy of the United States There's also a well made documentary available for free, made by famous director Aaron Russo about the illegal income tax and the Federal Reserve scam: 'America: From Freedom To Fascism'
My Questions would be: Is the United States a country or a corporation, or both?Was it ever a country really, or just some agreement by law to get 50 souvereign States work together.
Also, I recently read somewhere that the state of Texas has to renew it's agreement to be part of "the US" every year... (don't know if this is actually done, or whatever...)
Best regards, RM
JonBostwick: Steve Bachman: At some point in the early 20th Century, the U.S. Congress made some sort of secret, signed agreement with international bankers, which effectively transformed the U.S.government into a Washington D.C.-based corporate entity, and a bankrupt one at that. American democracy turned government into corporations a few centuries ago, and thats as close to a compliment as democracy is going to get from me. Corporations aren't evil, government created privileges that empower them are. Strike the root of evil, not one of its many branches.
The very existance of a corporation is a government created privilege. A corporation, by definition, is a legally privileged institution. The corporation arose as a governmentally created construct. Corporations are extensions of the state. We've been through this before.
Steve Bachman: Is the United States really a bankrupt corporation?
I wrote an article on the bankruptcy of the USA. The short answer is, yes, the USA is bankrupt. The long answer is that the bankruptcy of the USA is:
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
The word bankruptcy is too often used as a catchall. People in business know there is a difference between insolvency and bankruptcy. When Bretton Woods collapsed, that was not Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That was insolvency, which ended with a reorganization (Chapter 11).
What is your definition of bankruptcy? If by "bankruptcy", you mean "default on a promise", then bankruptcy did occur in 1933 and 1971.
If by "bankruptcy", you mean "completely cease operating as a business", then that will occur in approximately 20 years (according to my estimates).
The US government entered the equivalent of chapter 11 bankrupty in 1933 and 1971. However, at some point, you must emerge from bankruptcy or be liquidated. The US government is headed towards chapter 7 more than it's headed towards returning to sound principles.
I believe Chapter 7 is much closer to a true bankruptcy than Chapter 11, which in my opinion, is insolvency followed by a reorganization for solvency.
If you believe the US will cease operating as a political, ideological or military entity in 20 years, I have some oceanside property to sell you near Regina Saskatchewan. There may be a moment of weakness where people can make some changes, but the world's largest military and bureaucracy, like the foreclosed houses in Nevada, California and Arizona will not go "poof"! Someone will step in, finance and take control of arguably the world's largest collection of assets.
fsk:In 1913, when the 16th amendment was fraudulently declared ratified and the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally created.
What was fraudulent about that? If anything the 14. was illegaly ratified. The 16. is perfectly fine.
Is there something to read about the history of corporate and company law beyond the Angry Philosophy Students attacks?
scineram: What was fraudulent about that? If anything the 14. was illegaly ratified. The 16. is perfectly fine.
A guy did some research and concluded that the 16th amendment was fraudulently declared ratified. I consider all government to be fraud, so that specific point isn't my main concern.
w/ the liberty student post:
Just curious, if the dollar/economy collapses, what will those banks and corporations be buying everything up with, exactly? Also, same question - if this happens, how, exactly would the USA be able to continue functioning at all - the political entity will lose complete credibility with the people now in shockdown, the whole ideological entity will be out the window as it would be pretty apparent to anyone who isn't retarded that the American Dream is a joke, and without funding to maintain a military, I do not see how the USA will continue to function in this state.
I can see the people left over organizing to rebuild and keep going, etc. but as corrupt as the "enforcement" arm of governments have become, I think it would be far closer to what happened in New Orleans post Katrina/Rita - majority of the cops bailed out and refused to even show up, not even out of simple compassion - they wouldn't be compensated, and their primary concerns were their own interests and that of their families. Even the guard units that were sent - I think the same would apply - if they weren't going to be compensated and the economy was hosed and there was no further worth to the dollar, the "government" would have no real way to compel the enforcers to do anything at all, and most would likely bail to serve their own interest first because it is an absolute fact that ALL military and ALL law enforcement, even all of the federal agents such as BATF, FBI, etc. are only doing what they do, corrupt or not, for no other reason than they have a job and all and are getting a paycheck. That paycheck is their incentive. Very few would hang in there out of the goodness of their hearts to "enforce" anything, and if those would then it's a sure bet they're not going to just turn into sociopaths and act abusively on some government order. If the enforcers aren't being compensated and cannot be compensated for an indefinite period of time, and the enforcers know that there is no further guarantee to their paycheck, the government is disabled as far as controlling anything or anyone.
Most of the agencies set up to provide any real assistance to the public, or those agencies who are not integral to the maintenance of "running the country" would likely be the first ones chopped, their employees without any jobs.
I can see no reason for optimism here for the continuation of any government for very long, once the reality and implications of the situation settle on the population itself - that this government let/caused this to happen at all would seem to be the final straw and they would drastically lose consent of the people to go along with anything they wanted to come off with for their "security and protection" and probably under those circumstances, the "government" would largely be overestimating their power by fiat of the people, so sending any "enforcers" available to "enforce" anything would very likely result in the "enforcers" being shot down in their tracks.
I am sure, however, that various elements of those in the government have protected themselves with other assets, gold, etc. but hording it will do them little good - it would come down to whether they wanted to pass it to new hands to have someone to protect them from the pissed off population or to pass it to new hands to obtain food, clothing, shelter. The other option is to find some other country that didn't also have its entire economy collapse in the domino round of collapses.
Lots of the conspiracy theorists might feel that there is a shadow government or a "they" group out there who have systematically installed what they intend to be labor camps so their illegitimate private militia Blackwater can herd the unruly people into camps, and turn the whole situation into their opportunity for "global enslavement" but I find that really hard to fathom, because if the economies collapse, and the currency is worthless, it's just as worthless to the "they" and "they" combined simply do not have enough alternative forms of currency to keep the enforcers in business enslaving the population - in that sort of circumstance. It would be more akin to a short lived last dying gasp at a power grab for the gun, but the risk to the enforcers would escalate far greater than it is today while things are still civil and calm.
Send a few billion people to the brink of starvation around this globe and the secret cartel of globalist elite will be running for cover, especially if it came clear they caused this to happen. There won't be anywhere on this planet they'll be safe for very long. And if there aren't any globalist elite with shadow agendas to rule the world, then the fact is that the government in full is simply inept and incompetant, and the crashing and burning of the US economy is the fruit by which it will be known, and disavowed.
Is there something I'm missing?