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

Re: OBJECTION: Act of 1871 did NOT create a corporation called the "United States of America"

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. To: Tremblay, Stella Cc: al.baldasaro@leg.state.nh.us; lars@taybre.net; Sent:
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 6, 2013


      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      To: "Tremblay, Stella" <Stella.Tremblay@...>
      Cc: al.baldasaro@...; lars@...;
      Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:25 PM
      Subject: Re: OBJECTION: Act of 1871 did NOT create a corporation called the "United States of America"

      >  There are thousands of people that do not agree with you. 

      So what?  At one time, millions of people thought the earth was flat too.

      I've read the Act of 1871 at least three different times:

      it does NOT incorporate the Federal Government
      -and-
      it does NOT incorporate "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
      either!

      HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU READ IT??


      That Act did extend the entire U.S. Constitution into D.C.
      but politicians conveniently IGNORE the pertinent
      section of that Act:

      http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871


      "To put to rest all doubts concerning the applicability of the constitution to the District, congress in 1871 specifically extended it thereto [citing Downes v. Bidwell;  16 Stat. 419, 426;  Curry v. D.C., 14 App. (D.C.) 423]."


      Here's Downes v. Bidwell:

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244


      It may be added in this connection, that to put at rest all doubts regarding the applicability of the Constitution to the District of Columbia, Congress by the act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. 419, 426, chap. 62, 34), specifically extended the Constitution and laws of the United States to this District.


      Here's the page from the Statutes at Large
      where Congress extended the Constitution into D.C.:

      http://supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif
        (Sec. 34, last sentence)


      If you were faithful to your Oath of Office,
      the Full Faith and Credit Clause would
      require you to confront the facts and laws
      as explained clearly here:

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



      Chiefly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
      that the Federal Government is NOT a corporation:


      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=312&invol=600

      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.


      >  Why does NH have Dunn & Bradstreet numbers,  listed as a public corporation?

      Dunn & Bradstreet is NOT an authority.

      If you're talking now about the State of New Hampshire,
      you've changed the subject.

      I'm OK with that:  however ...

      The Federal Regulations for Title 31, at one time
      defined two (2) parallel sets of terms --
      one for the de jure Republic and
      one for the de facto "democracy":


      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr512.htm#stategovernment
      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr522.htm#stategovernment

      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr512.htm#governor
      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr522.htm#governor


      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr512.htm#secretary
      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/31cfr522.htm#secretary


      The de facto entities like to refer to themselves as "corporations".

      Bill Clinton ordered those Regulations removed from Federal
      Depository libraries, however.


      Must have touched a nerve ...

      Touchy touchy!


      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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



      On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tremblay, Stella <Stella.Tremblay@...> wrote:
      Mr. Mitchell:  There are thousands of people that do not agree with you.  Why does NH have Dunn & Bradstreet numbers,  listed as a public corporation?   There is too much Corruption.  YOU know it, and more people are waking up to the fact.   See what is happening in the family court:   http://youtu.be/Ge8n0pp_GSk  

      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [supremelawfirm@...]
      Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 7:33 PM
      To: Tremblay, Stella; Baldasaro, Al; Christiansen, Lars
      Cc: Michael Rivero; SupremeLaw
      Subject: OBJECTION: Act of 1871 did NOT create a corporation called the "United States of America"

      Greetings New Hampshire Representatives:

      The following paragraph contains a serious error:


      III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district’s municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.


      That is a very common and widespread myth
      which has been circulating the Internet for YEARS.

      The Act of 1871 incorporated the District of Columbia;
      it did NOT incorporate the Federal Government and
      it did NOT create a corporation called "United States of America".


      Numerous municipalities in America are corporations
      e.g. all County governments in California are "bodies corporate"
      by Act of the California Legislature.  So, it's no big deal
      that D.C. is also a municipal corporation -- by Act of Congress.



      Please read and STUDY the following:

      http://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 ."


      We got to the bottom of this myth, by tracing it to "dictum"
      issued by C.J. Marshall when he was presiding on a
      Federal Court of Appeals:


      http://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 quote]


      See also what several State Secretaries of State
      have certified concerning claims that
      Scotland, anybody?


      You might also contact the New Hampshire Secretary of State
      to request similar Certificates.


      Hope this helps.


      --
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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



      --



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