Sunday, December 7, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. united states of America

While we were asleep our country was stolen from us: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. united states of America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0#t=219

Dear Friends,

For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.

There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
either the "United States" or the "United States of America".

In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also
expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.
:

[link to www.supremelaw.org

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
the Supreme Court wrote:

[link to laws.findlaw.com

"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 ."


Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
originated in the definition of "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:

[link to www.supremelaw.org

See Paragraph 5 quoted here:

"5. The United States of America are a corporation
endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued
, to convey
and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.
But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law."

Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
evidence that the "United States of America" are plural,
as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author
of that definition switches to "United States" in the second
sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the
term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings:

[link to www.supremelaw.org


"GOLD FRINGED FLAG

The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America. more information

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."

THE LAW OF THE FLAG

The Law of the Flag, an International Law, which is recognized by every nation of the planet, is defined as:

"... a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41"

<snip>

[link to www.apfn.org

No comments: