Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General's VERIFIED OBJECTIONS Re: What You BELIEVE vs What's So

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Hello Ed, That ridiculous document has been making the rounds for some time now, and it is LOADED WITH ERRORS. I m now persuaded to believe that you have
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Ed,

      That ridiculous document has been "making the rounds" for some time now,
      and it is LOADED WITH ERRORS.

      I'm now persuaded to believe that you have NEVER read a single
      Act of Congress that created a Federal corporation:  if you had,
      you would already know how much text is required to do so!!

      Just pick a sample of 4 of 5 "facts" and look up the alleged authority(s) e.g.:


      22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.)


      America is NOT a British Colony:  the British Army surrendered at Yorktown:

      http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/yorktown.htm


      And, the "United States" (federal government) is NOT a corporation,
      but this VERY NASTY LIE continues to circulate EVEN AFTER
      we have fully refuted it with plenty of authorities:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/  (revoked)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/  (revoked)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/  (see all CERTIFICATEs)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

      In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
      the Supreme Court wrote:
       
       
      "We may say in passing that the argument that the
      United States may be treated as a corporation
      organized under its own laws, that is, under the
      Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained
      as not to merit serious consideration ."

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/reply.to.brief.for.appellee.htm

      The “government” did not bring this suit.  The U.S. Department of Justice has no powers of attorney legally to represent any one of the 50 States of the Union, nor all of them collectively.  28 U.S.C. 547.  The 50 States of the Union are already quite adequately represented legally by their respective State Attorneys General.  28 U.S.C. 530B.
      Moreover, in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court prohibited Congress from re-defining any terms used in the Constitution for the United States of America (“U.S. Constitution”).  At 28 U.S.C. 1746, both “United States” and “United States of America” occur in correct contradistinction to each other (inside one is outside the others).  28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only statute in all of Title 28 where the term “United States of America” occurs as such.
      The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] did incorporate twice as such in the State of Delaware, but certified evidence now before this Court shows that both foreign corporations have been revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State.  Neither foreign corporation was ever registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State either!  (See “Certificate”!)
      Even if one or the other were not revoked, DOJ would still not have any powers of attorney legally to represent a foreign Delaware corporation.  Congress never appropriated funds for DOJ to do so.

      Finally, Congress has never incorporated either the “United States” or the “United States of Americaas such.  See U.S. v. Cooper Corporation
      , 312 U.S. 600 (1941).  It appears that Chief Justice John Marshall was responsible for fabricating the myth that “The United States of America” are a corporation.  See Dixon v. The United States, 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181 (1811).  However, without citing any actual legislative authority for that proposition, Marshall’s statement is merely dictum that was later cited in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), at the definitions of “Union” and “United States of America”.  In any event, Dixon has been overruled by Cooper supra because Dixon was decided by a Circuit Court in a case on which C.J. Marshall presided.

      [end excerpt]
       
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

      From: Edward C. Ebert Jr. <ecosoft@...>
      To: Edward C. Ebert Jr. <ecosoft@...>
      Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:51 AM
      Subject: What You BELIEVE vs What's So

      Dear Friends,
      Read the link, wake up personally (check each citation for each item) and now you will then understand why I advocated for not voting ...
      http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr/2012/11/in5-40-outrageous-facts-most-people.html  
       
      Be well,
       
      Ed


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.