Some point to the United States Code (USC) to claim that the United States is a federal corporation, and not a union of states as described in the original Constitution.
From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:
(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.
If you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s not saying that the United States is a federal corporation, but rather, it’s referring to federal corporations incorporated by the United States.
At the beginning of the section, it says: “As used in this chapter:“
Therefore, the reference to the “United States” as “a federal corporation” is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176 of the United States Code.
Even within that limited context, it’s not referring to the United States as a federal corporation. If that was the intent, it would have been defined as “the United States, a Federal corporation.”
Looking at a different subchapter of the same chapter, namely, Subchapter D, Section 3306 (Remedies of the United States), (a):
“(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to the United States;“
If the meaning of ”(A) a Federal corporation” is substituted, we get:
(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to a Federal corporation.
Examples of United States federal corporations can be found here.
In my article, A Constitution for the United States of America or of the United States?, I show how the Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution drew no distinction between the two, despite the claim that the United States of America is a nation and the United States is a corporation.
lust a piece of friendly advice: realize that faux is a piece of garbage and you will understand his reasoning
When you can’t refute someone’s arguments, the only thing left is to attack them, and that’s what you have had to resort to.
The words “of” and “for” most certainly do have different meanings and people two hundred years ago must have been acutely aware of the differences. The word “of” means belonging to that which comes after the word. So the Constitution “of” the United States would mean that that particular constitution belonged to the entity called the “United States.” Whereas, the word “for” would describe that document as created by the people and for the people. Like in a government by the people and for the people, not “of” the people. Therefore, to my mind the Constitution of the United States is a document created for the corporate government and not for the people who allegedly created that document. Just my meanderings on the subject.
Just because the founding fathers drew no distinction between the two (United States of America and United States) DOES NOT mean the men that came after them did as well. They simply snuck in, went over the constitution, and manipulated people in power with back door deals until it became so. So yes, the US is a corporation, plain and simple.
Even sitting congressman Alan West understands this fact.
Stop with the BS mistruths articles. Also, who writes these articles? I see no name anywhere!
The article is about how the United States isn’t a federal corporation — not that it’s not a corporation.
As for Alan West, he was defeated in the recent election, and as for who writes these articles, it’s clearly indicated in every article that I do, using my pen name, FauxCapitalist, and you can easily see my real name by looking at my weekly show description articles.
So since we both agree that the US is in fact a corporation, what are its products exactly? Every corporation provides a product or service. What does it sell/bargain with? What is its collateral?
Also, most of all, who are its shareholders because it’s definitely not the American people. Otherwise we the people wouldn’t be so in debt. So obviously no one listens to us so obviously we’re not in charge. Point: this is not a representative democracy unless you’re a billionaire. So who is in control of the fed because that’s exactly the people destroying our wealth.
As for “FauxCapitalist”, it sound like a description to me.
You should be telling me the answers to your questions, since you’re the one asserting the United States is a corporation.
LOL….well that explains a lot about what this site is for. Thanks for the saved time.
“The article is about how the United States isn’t a federal corporation — not that it’s not a corporation.”
What’s so funny about you not being able to answer some basic questions concerning fundamental aspects of corporations, as you assert the U.S. is?
After seeing your responses, I’ve come to the conclusion of “whatever”. I won’t be back…Good Day!
(watch people more qualified than me or you discuss reality in the video I linked)
Hi NM_boldly,
Interesting response to this post. I’m well versed on the Constitution and this information. I would like to get more info on the mandamus you are referring to since the courts are violating our Constitutional rights day in and day out. Have you successfully used this mandamus process and also can it work when you are already in a civil foreclosure case as a defendant?
Thank you.
Hi NM_boldly,
Your comment is very interesting in response to this post.
Have you done what you are describing here regarding the mandamus and bringing that to the courts attention? Can that be done in a state court when you are a defendant to a foreclosure proceeding? We are having our rights violated day in and day out in these courts and unfortunately the judges are letting the banks win. I’d be interested in knowing more about this process. I have already done affidavits to claim my natural person rights under the Constitution so I am well versed.
Thank you.
This NAME is used by public agents and agencies under presumption of law, to create a public avatar for private individuals and the property thereof, in order to apply taxes for services or privileges brought forth under public policy (colorable law). State and Federal agents/agencies use this ALL CAPS presumption to tax duties hence the all capital designation on legal documentation such as DL, BC, permits and governmental services. The problem is that they are violating the constitutional provisions put forth to restrain them by dragging the privacy of the individual into the public forum and then applying a tax, this closely resembles a bill of attainder. Once you have brought this to the courts attention by way of judicial notice via “mandamus” your constitutional rights are protected. You may then collect for damages accrued by the improper use of the name/avatar (attempt to alter your identity, fraud) without standing or venue.
Well FAUXCAPITALIST,
There are some things that I would like your opinion on…
As every citizen should know, the founding fathers wrote the Constitution in a way that is to be understood by ALL citizens of all walks of life. However, the laws that appear these days are written in “legal-ease” jargon. Now, why do you suppose that is?
In other words, people should be able to read the law for themselves as intended and not have a lawyer to interpret but, we have all of these codes, statutes, regulations, ordinances and more laws that are written with words that are defined outside of a normal dictionary. Why the double standard? (Or, as George Orwell says, DOUBLESPEAK?)
Yes, if a word is redefined in a law dictionary, could that law be redefined as needed?
Why do we Americans allow this wording to exist and is this a justifiable circumstance?
That’s all for now. I would like your insight. Thank you.
Wrong!! From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation.
What part of this don’t you understand?
You missed the whole point of the article.
LOL people didn’t read I guess
Nope, he didn’t. Foolish shill.
Your comment is as intelligent as frank’s.
It’s funny how the uneducated make a big deal about whether words are capitalized or uncapitalized. Neither the law nor the English language is magical, folks. Capitalization makes no difference. None. If you dislike the government, fine. But don’t live your life believing in linguistic fairy tales. The law is the law; it’s all spelled out in publicly accessible statutes. Nothing is hidden. There are no magical ways to make your mortgage go away and there is no U.S. government other than the one that’s been around for 200+ years.
Yes, whether our names are in caps or not, it’s a separate issue of creating a legal fiction of a person, and that is something a legitimate government can do.
And even if things are being carried out by incorporated state entities, those articles of incorporation were still enacted by legitimate governments, and any such articles can be repealed.
Well, I see I’ve landed in the land of unicorns. It’s America, so you can believe in whatever nutty thing you want to. Good luck with that.
I totally agree
One of the few commenters who agrees with me. :)
Lets just look to see it this is correct. I turn to the Bible for the answer. If in the Bible is says “God” it’s talking about Him the Lord. But when the Bible talks about “god” it has a totally different meaning. so if capitalization makes no difference. why do it at all? don’t be a dumb ass! it’s bad enough your ignorant, don’t proof it by talking about what you don’t know! By the way the Law is the Law! it’s not the law is the law Gods Law is it,like it or not! Mat_13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
I love your sense of irony: “it’s bad enough your ignorant, don’t proof it by talking about what you don’t know!”
why do bible believers and God loving people get so angry and hateful? now THAT is ironic.
wow. Then why were the definitions rewritten in Blacks Law Dictionary over time?
Maybe so that people could spend endless amounts of time arguing about the significance of it instead of really challenging the system.
Then please explain to me how it is that Guam is defined as unincorporated with the US ?
How is that relevant?
From Wikipedia: “Unincorporated territory is a legal term of art in United States law denoting an area controlled by the government of the United States, but which is not a part of the United States proper (see also possession).”
What does being unincorporated have to do with the United States allegedly being a federal corporation?
people are just looking for a reason to argue. ignore.
“legal term of art”
The proof’s right there !!!
If CAPS mean nothing, then you think Corp’s go out of thier way, and pay extra money to make capitol letters, and make up terms like “legal term of art”? The legal system is all about Art and Illusion~ The proof’s right there~
Interesting how the videos disappeared…
It says the uploader closed their YouTube account.
Notice that when the author uses the word “federal” to make his or her case, the word’s first letter is lower case. But in Title 28 Section 3002 (15) (A) of the USC, which the author quotes correctly, the word is capitalized, which makes it a proper noun. So the author is legally correct in his assertion, but is using the same tactic to fool us into thinking a certain way that the people who devised Title 28 used.
WELL PUT !!!
Clarification on one thing.
The definitions used here are ONLY for this chapter of the code.
As this section states:
“As used in this chapter:”
Therefore both fauxcapitalist & other commenters are wrong.
Here’s a good link for some clarification:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
Under the USC the phrase “United States” is to be construed as “a Federal Corporation,” etc. . .
“(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to the “United States Federal corporation.”
There, fixed it for you ;)
In other words, the “debt” is payed to the “United Stated” (corporation), not “the United Stated” (the country)–because the USC clearly defines the phrase “United States” when used in the USC other than in the definition itself–in that case the phrase “the United states” seen in (B) & (C) refers to the country because it is setting the definition for the phrase “United States” when used in the USC. Therefore, any other time the phrase “United States” shows up in the USC (other than the definition itself) it means ONLY one of those three things, A, B, or C–all three of which are an “entity” of “the United States” (the country) and NOT the country itself.
Seems rather clear and I’m not on either side of this debate. When you read law you have to understand the definitions used for said law(s), and in the case of the USC it is clear that the phrase “United States” is defined as a corporation or an entity of “the United States” (the country)–there’s the problem with letting lawyers write laws, they will twist common words to mean things the normal person would never think they mean and mix them in with the common phrase themselves. In this case they are mixing in “United States” with “the United States.” Those are two, clearly, very different things under the USC.
As sick at it seems. . . the “U.S. government” is acting for a corporation and under the USC the “United States” DOES NOT refer to the country.
@FauxCapitalist
One last quip;
All local villages/towns/cities/counties/States are themselves Incorporated entities, however they derive ALL their powers inherent in the People; what makes you think the UNITED STATES is *not* a Federal Corporation?
BTW, it’s not the ” ..Constitution OF the United States” ; but ” …Constitution *for* the United States”.
Love
@FauxCapitalist
You also mention Natural Law; Would you agree Natural Laws are Immutable? How do you define natural law?
I define it as such;
“Natural” : Inherent; having a basis in Nature, Reality and Truth; not made or caused by humankind.
“Law” : an existing condition which is binding and Immutable (cannot be altered).
Just curious of how your define your word usage…
Love
Remember; Constitutional Rights are unalienable, and can never be infringed upon LAWFULLY. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights, as I understand it (Originally Articles of the Constitution itself, but 2 of 12 proposed were eventually dropped) was to enshrine into writing all possible abuses of powers *not* delegated to the “… thirteen united States of America” and preserve and protect those rights Inherent to the People.
Love
@”FauxCapitalist
Any Act of Congress purporting to extend its authority to “legislate in all cases” beyond the area described in the Constitution is unconstitutional.
However, there is the issue of consent to waive certain rights, such as the ability to waive your right to remain silent.
Just as you can waive your right to remain silent in the presence of FBI agents, you can waive your right against self-incrimination by filing an IRS tax return, which requires a Social Security number, and that’s how they can get you to voluntarily waive your constitutional and even natural rights, regardless of whether their Act is constitutional or not.”
How is it possible to waive Constitutional Rights under the non-Authority of Unlawful, Null and Void Acts and Statutes?
Love
Wasn’t the constitution ended at the onset of the Civil War? What happens when certain parties break a contract? “If a party materially breaches a contract then non-breaching party can consider the contract to be terminated” (lawinfo.com). If the constitution was terminated, was it ever reinstated in any official or legal capacity? Or has the Act of 1871 served as an interim since that point?
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows the shareholders assets and liabilities, in Canada it’s the canFR. Enjoy:)
The shareholders assets and liabilities for the united states (which means federal corporation) are listed in the comprehensive annual financial reports which all corporations are required to file every year.
in canada it’s called the canFR. Enjoy:)
Law is written to mean what it says. Any legislation that has been written with the intent of having multiple meanings is unconstitutional.
“United States” means Federal Corporation…. seems easy enough to understand.
The code should state “United States” means (A) any federal corporation created by the United States of America”, as an example.
Of course, it’s obvious to see that most laws were written to just confuse the average person. This is how a mass population can be controlled, especially, if the education system has been set up to breed future debt slaves that only know how to do their job. The forced drugging of Americans doesn’t help either.
Sorry FauxCapitalist, but you need more fancy wording and evidence to support your claim. :)
Really? Then what does the Constitution’s reference to “bills of credit” mean? Would you say that it means all paper receipts for credit? James Madison gave us the meaning as being paper money.
Then, how about the reference to the “Assistance of Counsel”? Michael Badnarik, “The Stepfather of the Constitution,” interprets counsel to mean anyone, while according to Pastor David Whitney of The Institute on the Constitution, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, said it specifically meant an attorney.
The Power Elite don’t think in linguistic terms. They see pictures and scenarios that can’t be explained with words, and maybe never will. I’m not saying that “humans” are incapable of learning their “language”. If I was, I wouldn’t be here.
If a law is duly passed and written into Code it is indeed a law. This includes the income tax! The lawmakers swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, but the assumption is that they did so. Only upon judiciary review and a finding to the contrary could the law be found unconstitutional. However, if the people acquiesce to a law and/or the court doesn’t find the law is unconstitutional, then it matters not that the legal entity of the US government or its spelling. Most everyone presumes that the government is those people holding office in Washington DC and all their employees and staff, etc. That presumption also makes it so. The Constitution strengthened the central government and took away states rights. That reduced freedom. The 14th and 16th amendments reduced these rights further. Lincoln’s marshall law and the patriot act did more damage and many others. Perhaps the biggest loss of freedom resulted from the creation of the Federal Reserve. We need to slow and hopefully change the direction of the trends towards a larger central government that is a slave to the bankers, but it would be better to accomplish this by getting the peoples’ support. Frivolous schemes and conspiracy only weaken that cause. The private and often foreign owners of the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve wish to make money and consolidate their power. Why would anyone think otherwise? As debt and interest threaten to bring the government and its people to its knees for the Nth time, the central bankers will bail us out and they will take even more control. I think it was a Rthchild who said that he who controls the money cares not who makes he laws.
Another meatball lunatic trying to say the opposite of what is said. Red means Green tot hem.
Who? Please elaborate.
I’m guessing you were referring to me. Do you appreciate the importance of context? If it says in the Old Testament to stone the person who does any work on the Sabbath, does that mean Christians are supposed to do that? Well, it’s in the same Bible, so according to your logic, the answer would be yes!
Another meatball lunatic trying to INTERPRET what ENGLISH “MEANS”. Red means Green because lunatics say thats not what it means.
Ad hominem fallacy…
THE UNITED STATES is a legal fiction incorporated by “The United States” just as there is a legal personality in all caps on your bank card, license, and social security card. To be “in THE UNITED STATES” is the same as to be in “MICROSOFT” or in “BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA” though if you don’t know that this is what is being said it is quite easy to use this fraudulent conveyance of language to use the corporate government created by the ACT of 1871 to distort rights and privileges which are supposed to be guaranteed to the people of “The United States of America.” THE UNITED STATES is a legal fiction whose purpose is to defraud and enslave men.
There’s a distinction between it being a federal corporation (as some allege), which I’ve shown it isn’t, versus a corporation. But as for the latter, if it’s a corporation, then who are its shareholders and what is the price per share?
You said the “Act” of 1871. It’s an Act of Congress, which is either constitutional, or it isn’t. If it’s not constitutional, then it is of no legal effect, regardless of what government employees say. The people are the ultimate arbiter of an Act’s constitutionality.
Any Act purporting to incorporate the United States would be unconstitutional, since all federal officers can be impeached and held criminally responsible for their actions as individuals.
THATS THE POINT OF IT ALL! IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! YOU THINK THEY BANKERS WHO MADE THAT HAPPEN CARED? OF COURSE NOT!
but they worked in plausible denialbility(HJR 192) to protect themselves
Any Act of Congress purporting to extend its authority to “legislate in all cases” beyond the area described in the Constitution is unconstitutional.
However, there is the issue of consent to waive certain rights, such as the ability to waive your right to remain silent.
Just as you can waive your right to remain silent in the presence of FBI agents, you can waive your right against self-incrimination by filing an IRS tax return, which requires a Social Security number, and that’s how they can get you to voluntarily waive your constitutional and even natural rights, regardless of whether their Act is constitutional or not.
@Anonymous and @FauxCapitalist
suggest you both review what’s in this 10 part series from 1995! presentation even
“John David Van Hove aka Johnny Liberty part 1 of 10″
pt3 gets real interesting .. but watch all 10min episodes
Love