The Corporate States of America
Is the U.S. Federal Government is a Separate Nation? Should it be called the “United States, Incorporated?” Is the United States an illegal Quasi-Government?
Historic Summary of Corporations in the U.S.
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.
Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At Reclaim Democracy!, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation’s founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level — the U.S. Constitution.
BREAKING IT ALL DOWN
The UNITED STATES was formed in 1871, which controls only the District of Columbia and the territories it purchases or acquires; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands. Many think that income taxes, and some laws do not affect people in the sovereign states of the union as they are outside of the control / jurisdiction of the United States corporation. The United States of America is different from the “United States” [corporation].
The terms UNITED STATES and/or United States of America and/ or United States Government are all a private corporation, even with registered trademark.
The US corporation (originally called the District of Columbia) does not affect or control the 50 sovereign states that are protected from the federal government by the US Constitution for the United States adopted in 1788.
There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of “The People”.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889)
129 U.S. 141
STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum, v. HENNICK.
January 14, 1889
Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled ‘An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,’ (16 St. 419,) are as follows: ‘Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.’ ‘Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.’ These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled ‘An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,’ as sections 2, 49, 50.
And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for theDistrict of Columbia,” legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, whichtransferred the United States of America, the Republic, into “a corporate entity” entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having “no” jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.
Catalogued Research: Credibility In Our Ranks, Is There Any?
The Webster’s Dictionary states that Fraud means Deceit, Trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
The Blacks Law Dictionary states pretty much what the Webster’s Dictionary does but adds about two pages full of information. My favorite part is: A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
– – – –
February 21, 1871 Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the original Constitution for the united States (1788) was defaced in effect vandalized and sabotage when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1871)
is the constitution of the INCORPORATED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not !
Capitalization is significant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.
What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.
By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution.
– – – –
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm gives this discussion
District of Columbia
On May 3rd, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2 Stat. at L. 195.)
In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the district government — a Legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the Act of February 21st, of that year, entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it was constituted a “a body corporate for municipal purposes,” with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and “to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
– – – –
This Constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled “An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.” (18 Stat. at L. 116) By this Act the government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished (p. 234).
By a subsequent Act, approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should “remain and continue a municipal corporation,” as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the Act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in status quo ( p. 234).
All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them ( p. 234).
The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234
Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word “State” in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several “States,” refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may lodged in the city corporations, or in the District of Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign.
– – – –
Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
A copy of the pages here:
– – – –
United States – US- U.S.-USA-America ( a possession of the Queen of England)
Means: (A) a federal corporation . . . Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878; a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549, and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, and 6246; a de facto (define de facto) government, originally the ten square mile tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington D. C., plus the possessions, territories, forts, and arsenals.
The significance of this is that, as a corporation, the United States has no more authority to implement its laws against “We The People” than does Mac Donald Corporations, except for one thing — the contracts we’ve signed as surety for our strawman with the United States and the Creditor Bankers. These contracts binding us together with the United States and the bankers are actually not with us, but with our artificial entity, or as they term it “person“, which appears to be us but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
All this was done under,
In English Law. Courts established in the queen’s possessions beyond the seas, with jurisdiction over maritime causes, including those relating to prize.
The United States of America is lawfully the possession of the English Crown per original commercial joint venture agreement between the colonies and the Crown, and the Constitution, which brought all the states (only) back under British ownership and rule. The American people, however, had sovereign standing in law, independent to any connection to the states or the Crown. This fact necessitated that the people be brought back, one at a time, under British Rule, and the commercial process was the method of choice in order to accomplish this task. First, through the 14th Amendmentand then through the registration of our birth certificate and property. All courts in America are Vice-admiralty courts in the Crown’s private commerce.
“SupremeLaw Library. The FederalZone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue Electronic Eleventh Edition [Note: Small numbers indicate number of bytes in …” www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
“The SupremeLaw Firm holds informative seminars nationwide, and maintains the … His massive book entitled “The FederalZone: Cracking the Code of Internal …”www.supremelaw.org/
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH DATA SOURCES
Who Is Running America?
The United States is a Private Corporation Not a Public Government
U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE: STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889) 129 U.S. 141 STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum, v. HENNICK.
28 US Code § 3002 – Definitions – Legal Information Institute
United States v. United States of America – Supreme Law Firm
Constitution for the United States of America
Mohsen Salehi is a reputable, international Business & Management Consultant and Visionary Cross-Functional Business Engineer.
Business Engineering (BE) refers to the development and implementation of business solutions, from business model to business processes and organizational structure to information systems and information technology. Business engineering focuses on developing innovative business solutions and combines knowledge in the fields of business administration, Industrial Engineering, as well as information technology and connects it to all aspects of transformation, from means of presentation to process models to cultural and political considerations.
Mohsen is Internationally contracted by public, private, nonprofit and startup organizations to provide a spectrum of high-level and value-added expertise, recommendations as well as hands-on consulting on organization initiatives such as business growth, optimization, sustainability, digital transformation and change management while creating value, improving revenue growth, reducing operation costs and developing more efficient business practices and processes within budgets, schedules and without impacting profitability and KPI’s. He also serves as a Program/Project Management Lead, Organizational Change Management Lead, Corporate/Franchise Training Instructor, Classroom Lecturer, and Public Speaker.
Mohsen’s approach transforms startup, business engineering, solutions development activity by introducing a primary focus on human needs and organizational purpose. He was recognized for his contributions by being one of the first people elected amongst graduate and professional students to serve as Council Advisor for the Graduate & Professional Student Advisory Council (GPSAC) at Saint Mary’s College of California in 2013 as well as one of the first people elected amongst the Trans-Global Executive MBA Program (T-GEMBA) alumni at Saint Mary’s College of California to serve as a Global Dissertation Research & Consulting Project Mentor | Classroom Lecturer in 2012.
More from Business
Remote Workers Are Outperforming Office Workers--Here's WhyBy Brian de HaaffCo-founder and CEO, Aha!@bdehaaffCREDIT: Getty ImagesHave you seen any of these gimmicky …
There are very few black and Latinx investors, with only 2 percent of investment team members at VC firms identifying …