U.S. of America - Corporation or Company

The "benefits and privileges" that come with giving up rights so work can get done...

Preface

For more related to this topic of enslavement and the slave money system, please see:

Ashe in America. (2023, May 1). One of the most transformative moments in money since Jekyll Island. One of the Most Transformative Moments in Money Since Jekyll Island. https://badlands.substack.com/p/one-of-the-most-transformative-moments

American Hypnotist (2023, May 16). A startling contradiction at the heart of “our” legal system. A Startling Contradiction at the Heart of “Our” Legal System. https://badlands.substack.com/p/a-startling-contradiction-at-the

Carlson, E. (2023, March 22). The decade we all became slaves. The Decade We All Became Slaves - by Erik Carlson. https://badlands.substack.com/p/the-decade-we-all-became-slaves

American Hypnotist (2023a, February 16). Is the Federal Reserve a british institution?. Is the Federal Reserve a British Institution? https://badlands.substack.com/p/is-the-federal-reserve-a-british

DeLarme, R. (2023, February 8). The history of Fractional Reserve Banking in America. The History of Fractional Reserve Banking in America. https://badlands.substack.com/p/the-history-of-central-banking-in-57e

DeLarme, R. (2023a, February 1). The history of Central Banking in America. The History of Central Banking in America - by Ryan DeLarme. https://badlands.substack.com/p/the-history-of-central-banking-in

anon_fa_mous, U. (2022, November 29). 1913. 1913 - The Year the Cabal Enslaved America - by anon_fa_mous. https://badlands.substack.com/p/1913

Backstory

The following information is not strictly academic research alone. It is based on the personal experience and knowledge gained due to the hidden dangers to be found in corporations, the conversion of self, and the pledging to something other than Creation. There is value in understanding companies as the alternative to corporations. It is one thing to be educated and trained in the legal avenues of being a part of, or creating corporations; but, another thing to realize what the corporate structure means and how it can impact family, friends, people and society. The impacts occur along the way when a nefarious group of individuals leverage that legal framework for personal gain. Corporations creating an entity to mimic a natural person with certain legal rights skews reality and creates an opportunity for subversion. Companies do not have this construct.

My wife and i have gone down a path of creating something, a business, to later have it turned into a perversion through creative and high priced legal teams. This occurred once we thought adding new investors to the group would help propel growth through sales and marketing. This was through a series of legal corporate maneuvers and asset purchases. After 6 years of hard work with silent investors we trusted, we aligned with this other group for growing the business. We quickly learned in less than a year that their legal team was waiting for any opportunity to turn any routine work into an accusation (slander, false witness, etc…) for creating legal threats to push us out while they claim all the effort, assets, and IP as theirs for pennies on the dollar; this is done while pursuing ongoing threats of litigation (barratry) to remove us from what we built through intimidation. The path of figuring out how this happened (also while in the midst of learning about the American real history and founding documents and definitions of terms) led me to gain a true knowledge of the legal society. The real understanding is that it is all a lie and built on deception, presumption, and “voluntary” conversion with word magic. The first trick of which is the conversion of either john doe or John Doe into JOHN DOE. Once converted, a man can be played by the system as an entity or “natural person” with rights and privileges, and duties and responsibilities beyond being a husband, father, mother, son, or daughter. This conversion is in all the daily adhesion contracts like insurance, titles, registrations, certificates, banking, property theft through third party joint venture contracts (taxes, liens, bonds, mortgages, etc…), and the list goes on…

This is all orchestrated through corporations and private interests moving jurisdiction into the maritime and admiralty control.

Or as better stated from the private papers of Woodrow Wilson from a meeting with Colonel Edward Mandell House:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our Chattel and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.

This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

---

The Unbalanced Scale

The corporation structure was originally intended to organize artisans or local people into a group for a common goal in either commerce or actions on behalf of another. It was a way to establish rules and obligations while also providing opportunity in an organized method for contractors to bid on work. A corporation structure provided a construct for that common interest and provided a body (corpus in Latin) to operate those common interests with certain rights and privileges. However; it is also an easy way to corrupt and manipulate for other purposes.

The Roman system used the corporate structure to have contractors collect local taxes in communities or build infrastructure. When these corporations gained excessive power, especially by the primarily protected wealthy shareholders, corruption crept into the group. The structure of the agreement often placed some individuals at a lesser position and others at an advantage if someone did not understand the manipulation of words, language, power and money. Everyone and everything involved in a corporation is converted to a perpetual entity through the use of words regardless of ownership. This new conversion provides the possibility of certain rights, benefits, and privileges, and the new entity is considered a “natural person” for litigation purposes. Ex.) Employee, Shareholder, Party, Owner, President, Manager, Officer, etc…

A company by contrast is formed as an association or societal group to unite for some commercial or business interest. Mankind stays mankind while supporting or running the company. All rights from conception still exist when having a company. A company is something you claim (belongs to you) rather than being converted to some entity within a corporation. A company can be a small or large number of people. It is typically used for trade. As such, the American government and personal trade were initially set up as companies. They were not necessarily a corporation or incorporated. However, changing from a company to a corporation can be a progression of change depending on the business goals and interests. The biggest difference is the company can have a potential limited service, is run by mankind and those of mankind are not converted to an entity, and is not considered a “natural person” or “person” with rights, duties, obligations, privileges, and responsibilities.

Corporate Agreement Example - The Unbalanced Scale

The corporate contract common example of litigation control within its members through agreement language…

Venue and Acceptance of Service of Process:

EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT OR ENTITLEMENT TO A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ANY MATTER, LEGAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREES AND CONSENTS THAT ANY LEGAL ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL ONLY BE BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF THE (STATE AND COUNTY). By execution and delivery of this Agreement, each Party hereby (a) accepts the jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts; (b) waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the venue set forth above; and (c) further waives and such suit or action brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

Breaking this down, the first red flag is “Party”. This is an entity and not real. It has reduced mankind to a fake thing on paper and hence allows for a jurisdiction change.

The next red flag is “Right or Entitlement”. Why would anyone voluntarily give up their rights or entitlement to anything? This places all control into the hands of another. It also confirms the diminishment of mankind to something less. We are born with all our rights. But, when entering a contract, we may voluntarily give up some of those rights to receive benefits by way of privileges in other areas that may not otherwise be easily attained alone.

The next red flag is “trial by jury”. A trial by jury is pressing a claim of law based on rights being upheld, with the facts, evidence, findings, and conclusions at law being presented and explained to a group of peers seated to find order, and a magistrate as the public servant. This is what mankind expects from their peers; to have a fair review of the facts, and unbiased decisions within a local area of common ideals and culture (the local shire). This trial by jury occurs in the district of the incident as being the competent jurisdiction.

By contrast, a “jury trial” is the legal society in control and “representing”, thus reducing a man or woman to a plaintiff or defendant, and to listen to arguments and complaints. This is with a judge having the final say, and who can overrule the jury that may or may not be comprised of peers; this is due to the change in venue, jurisdiction not being land and soil, and the attorneys influencing the group selection. It becomes a show rather than a presenting of facts.

At this stage the scale is unbalanced because the only ones in control are the lawyer and the judge, and the non-local venue. Mankind is a spectator and an entity waiting judgement in a foreign jurisdiction.

Corporation Fraud

By creating and signing up as a corporation, you are reducing yourself to an entity and losing rights as a man or woman. This is the great trick with the corporate structure. For most well versed corporate participants, this is well known and an acceptable activity. Most of mankind have no idea how this works and how it can trap you into something you did not foresee. It changes the jurisdiction and changes YOU to something less than a creation of Creation. It places your life and rights into the hands of an individual with a title of nobility (lawyer or attorney), who then “represents” you all while “practicing” law. They are not expected to know law. Only to be well versed in legal. You become a subject of the court rather than commanding the court.

The attorney or lawyer gets a license from the private BAR guild, and swears an oath to the guild for said license. This places them in perpetual conflict with serving the people. It is in their best interest to rack up money for the guild, and its members and associates, over actually assisting mankind.

A corporation is a way to move a man or woman, who is one below Creation in the hierarchy of life, into an entity and reduced to below a judge, lawyer, etc…

Everyone thinks there are benefits and privileges by being in a corporation. If each of us were to realize we have all the benefits and privileges by being mankind, we quickly realize we do not need to give away rights to get benefits and privileges. These benefits and privileges are usually disguised initially as free stuff. What is really happening is a removal of rights and property and reducing mankind to a thing.

Logic question: if we are born with all rights, how does joining a corporation extend or improve those rights? The trick is in “benefits and privileges”. If people can leverage work and results by using a company without losing rights, why use a corporation structure? Is it worth it in the long run?

The fraud is the conversion into and entity without explanation of the diminishment. It is “presumed” you voluntarily agree to the diminishment. It is constructive fraud as it is intentional and created to take over control in the case of a conflict. This is a departure from the original intent of the corporate structure to collectively bring together contractors for performing work. It morphed into a control structure and a way to hide assets, collect taxes unlawfully, and give power to certain shareholders by hiding behind the corporate entity.

The Corporate Document

At the beginning of the corporate document is the beginning of the “bait and switch”. It seems normal at first glance, but it is designed for conversion to reduce the man or woman, and in the case of a contract between corporations, to a lesser entity. For skilled individuals used to working within the structure, this can be highly beneficial.

THIS ____________ AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), is dated and effective as of, ________, 20__ ("Effective Date"), by and among (i) SOME COMPANY, LLC, an OHIO limited liability company ("Transferor"); (ii) JOHN DOE, a resident of the State of OHIO ("John"), (ii) SALLY SMITH, a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("Recipient" or "Sally"), (iv) ANOTHER COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Company"); and (v) THE COMPANY, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. Transferor, Owners, Recipient, Company shall at times be referred to individually as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."

In this example, the companies, the people, and the various capitus diminutio versions of the people are reduced to entities going by the title “Transferor, Owners, Recipients, Company, and Party or Parties”.

At first glance, this appears to make it easier for the rest of the document to minimize language within the document. However; since when was a legal document short and made to be easy? Also, it is the trick to convert all of mankind and their property into an entity that has a title that is now controlled by lawyers, attorneys, and judges. It is accomplished through language and word magic. If it was kept to a contract between mankind and the rights to their property, why bother changing the words? The reason… because, it becomes a record of conversion.

When a judge asks “have the ‘Parties’ appeared?”, they are conjuring a magic trick. When you say “yes”, you have now reduced yourself voluntarily to the entity “Party” or “Parties” magically appearing within the jurisdiction of the judge and now a contract has been formed. It is a way of perfecting the paperwork to create court. instead, mankind should always be present to explain at court; and not appear to complain in court.

Also it is important to understand the word “resident” used in the contract. As this admission reduces you to a tenant of the lord of the land and puts it on legal record.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

RESIDENT. One who has his residence in a place. "Resident" and "inhabitant" are distinguishable in meaning. The word "inhabitant" implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does "resident;" and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423.

Also a tenant who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not to depart from the same; called, also, "homme levant et couchant," and In Normandy, "resseant du fief." —Resident freeholder. A person who resides in the particular place (town, city, county, etc.) and who owns an estate in lands there in amounting at least to a freehold interest. Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 427 ; Campbell v. Moran, 71 Neb. 615, 99 N. W. 499; State v. Kokomo, 108 Ind. 74, 8 N. E. 720.—Resident minister. In international law. A public minister who resides at a foreign court. Resident ministers are ranked in the third class of public ministers. Wheat Int Law, 204, 207.

It is important to note that a resident is considered a tenant of the lord’s land. This would oblige the resident to taxation to the lord of the lands. It is not an accident that the word “resident” is used for your color of title in the form of a Warranty Deed, Quit Claim Deed, or other deed document. These colors of title use “resident” in all related documents for the location where you live. That location is actually a postal route location (the mailbox) and not the land. But, we voluntarily accept this as our land and accept we are a tenant to pay taxes. Acceptance of this reference in a legal document becomes a record of accepting “residency”. This means you are a tenant rather than an inhabitant with a permanent domicile with title in fee simple or allodial title to the land you own. So, what happened to title in fee simple or allodial title to land as promised by the land patent? We voluntarily gave it away to a third party joint venture title holder in the form of the local corporation of the municipality, township, city, county, state, and federal corporate government.

As such a residence is taxable:

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

RESIDENCE. Living or dwelling In a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time. The difference between a residence and a domicile may not be capable of easy definition; but every one can see at least this distinction: A person domiciled in one state may, for temporary reasons, such as health, reside for one or more years in some other place deemed more favorable. He does not, by so doing, forfeit his domicile in the first state, or, in any proper sense, become a non-resident of it, unless some intention, manifested by some act, of abandoning his residence in the first state is shown. Walker's Estate v. Walker, 1 Mo. App. 404.

"Residence" means a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling-place for the time being, as contradistinguished from a mere temporary locality of existence. So does "inhabitancy ;" and the two are distinguishable in this respect from "domicile." In re Wristley, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 134.

As they are used in the New York Code of Procedure, the terms "residence" and "resident" mean legal residence ; and legal residence is the place, of a man's fixed habitation, where his political rights are to be exercised, and where he is liable to taxation. Houghton v. Ault, 16 How. Prac (N. Y.) 77.

A distinction is recognized between legal and actual residence. A person may be a legal resident of one place and an actual resident of an other. He may abide in one state or country without surrendering his legal residence in another, if he so intends. His legal residence may be merely ideal, but his actual residence must be substantial. He may not actually abide at his legal residence at all, but his actual residence must be his abiding place. Tipton v. Tipton, 87 Ky. 243, 8 S. W. 440; Hinds v. Hinds, 1 Iowa, 30; Fitzgerald v. Are], 03 Iowa, 104, 18 N. W. 713, 50 Am. Rep. 733; Ludlow v. Szold. 90 Iowa, 175, 57 N. W. 076.

The man’s domicile is quite different than a residence and is permanent rather than temporary. The latter being taxable and the former not taxable if held as title in fee simple and/or allodial.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

DOMICILE. That place in which a man has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home. In re Garneau, 127 Fed. 677, 62 C. C. A. 403.

In its ordinary acceptation, a person's domicile is the place where he lives or has his home. In a strict and legal sense, that is properly the domicile of a person where he has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350, 1 Am. Bep. 334.

Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; DOMICILE 389 DOMINICUM or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him. Salem v. Lyme, 29 Conn. 74.

Domicile is the place where a person has fixed his habitation and has a permanent residence, without any present intention of removing therefrom. Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 504, 520.

One's domicile is the place where one's family permanently resides. Daniel v. Sullivan, 46 Ga. 277.

In international law, "domicile" means a residence at a, particular place, accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of intending to continue there for an unlimited time. State v. Collector of Bordentown. 32 N. J. Law, 192.

"Domicile" and "residence" are not synonymous. The domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation ; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Bartlett v. New York. 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 44.

The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there, while simple residence is much more temporary in its character. New York v. Genet, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 489.

Classification. Domicile is of three sorts, —domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. The first is the common case of the place of birth, domicilium origini»; the second is that which is voluntarily acquired by a party, propria motu; the last is consequential, as that of the wife arising from marriage. Story, Confl. Laws. 8 40. And see Railroad Co. v. Kimbrough, 115 Ky. 512. 74 S. W. 229; Price v. Price, 156 Pa. 617. 27 All. 291 ; White v. Brown, 29 Fed. Cas. 992.

The following terms are also used: Commercial domicile. A domicile acquired by the maintenance of a commercial establishment; a domicile which a citizen of a foreign country may acquire by conducting business in another country. U. S. v. Chin Quong Look (D. C.) 52 Fed. 204 ; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 12 Sup. Ct. 517. 36 L. Ed. 340.—De facto domicile. In French law, permanent and fixed residence in France of an alien who has not acquired French citizenship nor taken steps to do so, but who intends to make his home permanently or indefinitely in that country ; called domicile "de facto" because domicile in the full sense of that term, as used in France, can only he acquired by an act equivalent to naturalization. In re Cruger's Will, 36 Misc. Rep. 477, 73 N. Y. Supp. 812 —Domicile of origin. The home of the parents. Phillim. Dom. 25, 101. That which arises from a man's birth and connections. 5 Ves. 750. The domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant, and continues until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 389, 393, Fed. Cas. No. 11,384.—Domicile of succession. This term, as distinguished from a commercial, political, or forensic domicile, means the actual residence of a person within some jurisdiction, of such a character as shall, according to the well-established principles of public law, give direction to the succession of his personal estate. Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla. 81.—Elected domicile. The domicile of parties fixed in a contract between them for the purposes of such contract. Woodworth v. Bank of America, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 417, 10 Am. Dec. 239.—Foreign domicile. A domicile established by a citizen or subject of one sovereignty within the territory of another.—National domicile. The domicile of a person, considered as being within the territory of a particular nation, and not with reference to a particular locality or subdivision of a nation.—Natural domicile. The same as domicile of origin or domicile by birth. Johnson v. Twenty-One Bales, 13 Fed. Cas. 863.—Necessary domicile. That kind of domicile which exists by operation of law, as distinguished from voluntary domicile or domicile of choice. Phillim. Dom. 27-97.

Brief History of Corporations

Corporations are a structure used by the early Catholic Church modeled after the Roman society. It was a means of holding and transmitting (important word to understand when looking at the birth certificate creation) church property. The church used this much in the same way as the Roman Empire used corporations to provide rights to a body of people or artisans to perform work for a common goal and to protect the interests of the share holders. It can be transferred in perpetuity and still maintain the corporate name and charter. The Catholic church maintained this form of body (corpus) to hold property assets and monies as the clergy or priests, deacons, vicars, bishops and popes were not to have personal possessions.

Roman Corporations

It is natural to think of an organization as having a collective identity distinct from that of any particular person who owns or belongs to it. The Romans recognized this with the notion of a corporation. The word corporation derives from the Latin word corpus for body, representing a body of people authorized to act as an individual. Cities were the first entities the Romans treated as corporations. Over time, the concept was extended to certain community organizations called collegia. These included artisan associations, religious societies and social clubs formed to provide funerals for members.

Most Roman corporations served exclusively community or religious purposes. Of course, distinguishing public from private interests can be difficult. A natural tension exists between the two in any society.

The Roman Republic relied on private contractors to perform a variety of tasks. Contracts to build aqueducts, manufacture arms, construct temples, collect taxes—even feed the geese on the capital—were granted to firms called publicani. These originated as loose associations among contractors who would pool their resources to bid on contracts. Over time, the publicani evolved into permanent companies with numerous investors, only a handful of whom served as managers. Larger publicani employed thousands of workers spread across Rome’s provinces. Fragmented evidence indicates that some of these received corporate status (habere corpus), which included a grant of limited liability for investors.

The publicani were well connected and, at times, extremely influential. Collusion with government officials was a lucrative way of business. If there was public indignation, it was balanced by investment enthusiasm.

Holton, G. (2016, October 19). History of corporations. GlynHolton.com. https://www.glynholton.com/notes/corporation/

Reading the entire article is beneficial as Holton provides a number of references for the study into the corporate history in the Roman Empire.

Upside of the Corporate Structure

The benefit of a corporation is clearly the ability of people to formally organize and flourish as a common body politic, and push forward common interests and maintaining the formal structure regardless of ownership and leadership changes.

Both Rome and the United States were formed as republics. In the case of the United States, this came with an instrument in the Union of States proposed and enacted by the representative People of the States who were sent by the people in the states (a constitution) and limited enumerated duties with rules for designating responsibilities to others so the people could go on with their daily lives. It was initially a company and not a corporation.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

CONSTITUTION. In public law. The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.

In* a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian ; the Constitutions of Clarendon.

In American law. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void. Cooley, Const Lim. 3.

This is how we, as sovereign’s claiming our status as a Ohioan, Virginian, Floridian, or other home nation-state status, come together with a common goal to further our collective rights in trade, treaties, and war and in the realm of admiralty, maritime, air, and land jurisdictions. The conversion to an actual corporation occurred later in the history of the United States of America.

I encourage you to read “What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Corporations": by Justin Fox in the Harvard Business Review to get an idea of the evolution of how corporations were treated over time and that it is not a preferred way of doing business in the eyes of the founders of American government.

Corporate structures were and are a way to counter individual wealthy sovereigns who may otherwise throw their weight around through money and power like a king. Coming together as a collective and pushing back against overbearing perceived authorities to gain a type of equal footing in negotiations, infrastructure projects, and pushing back threats is highly beneficial.

Like all things in life, if left unattended, the corporation can get a mind of its own. That is the challenge in corporations anywhere. They are created for a specific function. This limited authority is slowly challenged and manipulated to gain power for those within the organization. Supreme court cases have allowed person-hood to expand to a natural person (not a man or woman, i.e. mankind) with rights and privileges similar to a 14th amendment federal citizen. If the wrong people start pulling the strings behind the scenes through special interests, lobbying, or other monetary manipulation, the corporation can turn against the people due to this blurred line of rights. Then the corporation takes the stance of a sovereign and the power is constricted back to a small group or individual holding all the power.

So what really is a corporation?

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

CORPORATION. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular office, but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals, who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of continuous succession, Irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred up on such bodies by law. See Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 Coke, 32 ; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 630, 657, 4 L. Ed. 629; U. S. v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. 57, 34 L. Ed. 640; Andrews Bros- Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C* A. 293; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 111. 573; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 408. 31 S. W. 797, 33 L. R. A. 570: Farmers' L. & T Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 283; State Bl.Law Dict.(2d Ed.)— 18 v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 44 S. W. 207; Barber v. International Co., 73 Conn. 587, 48 Atl. 758; Sovereign Camp v. Fraley, 94 Tex. 200, 59 S. W. 905, 51 L. R. A. 898; Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549, 50 N. E 240, 40 L. R. A. 589 ; Old Colony, etc., Co. v. Parker, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 557, 67 N. E 870; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 103, 129, 142.

A franchise possessed by one or more individuals, who subsist as a body politic, under a special denomination, and are vested by the policy of the law with the capacity of perpetual succession, and of acting in several respects, however numerous the association may be. as a single individual. 2 Kent, Comm. 267. An artificial person or being, endowed by law with the capacity of perpetual succession; consisting either of a single individual, (termed a "corporation sole,") or of a collection of several individuals, (which is termed a "corporation aggregate.") 3 Steph. Comm. 166; 1 Bl. Comm. 407, 469. A corporation is an intellectual body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues always the same, notwithstanding the change of the individuals who compose it, and which, for certain purposes, is considered a natural person. Civil Code La. art. 427.

INCORPORATION. 1. The act or process of forming or creating a corporation; the formation of a legal or political body, with the quality of perpetual existence and succession, unless limited by the act of incorporation.

2. The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by referring to the former in the latter, and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as If it were fully set out therein. This is more fully described as "incorporation by reference." If the one document is copied at length in the other, it is called "actual incorporation."

3. In the civil law. The union of one domain to another.

So, was the United States of America Federal Republic originally set up as a corporation? Actually, it was set up as an organization in the form of a company.

Companies

In America, we initially started with companies and not corporations with the exception of certain chartered municipalities, cities, and trade corporations. These corporations that already existed were kept to maintain some level of smooth transition to an independent country with nation-states. What is sometimes lost is the understanding that the founders of this country, for the most part, were aware and wanted to avoid the trappings of the incorporated structure and make sure there was a direct line from the people to the control of the organization. Keeping in mind in the definition below that a “person” has duties and responsibilities. This is in line with the idea that the People of the States, who represented the people of the nation-states, had duties and responsibilities in their roles.

COMPANY. A society or association of persons, in considerable number, interested in a common object, and uniting themselves for the prosecution of some commercial or industrial undertaking, or other legitimate business. Mills v. State, 23 Tex. 303 ; Smith v. Janesville, 52 Wis. 680, 9 N. W. 789.

The proper signification of the word "company," when applied to persons engaged in trade, denotes those united for the same purpose or in a joint concern. It is so commonly used in this sense, or as indicating a partnership, that few persons accustomed to purchase goods at shops, where they are sold by retail, would misapprehend that such was its meaning. Palmer v. Pinkham, 33 Me. 32.

So why did the founders prefer the company structure initially? The reason was simple. If there were to be no titles of nobility in holding public office (esquire, duke, lord, etc…) to avoid a conflict of interest, legal would not apply. Only law as statutes-at-large under common law and natural law were to be the guiding force in our country. A corporation was a legal entity rather than a lawful organization. We were to have counsel assist in matters of law, but no lawyers and attorneys to litigate legal jurisdictions in a position or office of government. All matters were to be the law of the land and under a common good. Only international trade and commerce was permitted in the sea jurisdiction. And this jurisdiction was still to be subject to the land control with permission of the people. The reference to inland piracy was a real concern due to the acts of the British and Spanish and Portuguese in the early American struggle for power over goods, trade, and slavery.

Now apply the definition of company versus corporation to the original form of the Federal Republic. There is a significant difference. It should start to be easy to see that a company has less hidden and less chance for leveraged and unbalanced control by those people in a corporation who are hidden from public view.

A corporation has person-hood and has rights and privileges similar to a 14th amendment citizen facilitated through court rulings over time. By contrast, a company is a group coming together for a common good for trade and general leverage for various commercial, industrial, and local activities.

The other key point is if the local towns, cities, counties, and states add a corporate structure that then can perform contracts with or receive grants from the federal government, there are now strings attached and legal implications that change the power structure. These conditions can limit local control; and the town, city, or county may no longer have the power in all instances. Mankind coming together as a company has less political manipulation and more raw strength in a common purpose at the local level. This is why, in order to take our country back, we need to start locally and stop allowing mankind to be converted to entities through corporate structures in the way of 14th amendment citizens as a “natural person”, lost at sea, in the wrong jurisdiction, with no real recourse or rights.

Centre County Courthouse, Pennsylvania

---