The Informer Documents

Writings by the Informer

 

 

BANKING

Gold and How it is Manipulated

Think #15 -IRS/Trust Codes

Redeem

IS THIS WHAT MAKES YOU SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX?

Use and Transfer

Hamilton's True Identity

So You Think the U.S. Still Has a Treasury

The Entire Patriot Community is Deficient in Knowledge

 

GOVERNMENT

HISTORY Not Now Taught in Public Schools The Cover Up of the Truth

What the Pope thought about his corporation in 1891

The Vatican Controls America and YOU

Cannon law in America Applies to all Citizens

BAIT AND SWITCH

America's Real History Not Taught

UCC DEFINITIONS

  JURY TRIALS A MYTH

Jurisdiction Over a National

Government Fraud A Short Synopsis

CITIZENSHIP BY TREATY
The Bill of Rights Fraud Part two
WHY DOES THE STATE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME?
The Bill of Rights Fraud Part I
 

WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?

JURISDICTION & THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT
WAS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE THEN? IS WASHINGTON, D.C. A STATE NOW?
OATHS OF OFFICE
1868 Inaugural Speech of Governor Worth
When was State Sovereignty Lost?

The Informer Addendum
Congress has no jurisdiction to levy an income tax

Congress ultimate administrator of the courts

AN END TO THE DEBATE ON THE 16TH?

 

WOW- The real 1930 Geneva Convention Books 

Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States - 1930

Volume I - pages 232-237

Volume III - pages 6-9

Volume III - pages 10-13

Volume III - pages 96-97

Volume III - pages 102-106

Volume III - pages 141-146

Volume III - pages 155-157

Volume III - pages 268-269

Volume III - pages 291-309

Volume III - Pages 399-404

Volume III - pages 411-413

Volume III - Pages 459-461

Last of the Geneva Papers

Common man never created the constitution

Citizen= Subject

Fiction of law

The myth of the term Law of the Land

Perspectives

Definitions that enslave you

State, United States. Includes
This is not conjecture, this is not myth, etc
 

PHONE TAX

COMMON SENSE

 HISTORY of the BRITISH SUBJECTS

A paradox for any court

IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PROTESTING GOVERNMENT

SO YOU REALLY WANT A REPUBLIC?

Are You a Corporation Member

How the government got you in its clutches, slave

YOU WANTED TO BE A CITIZEN - SO WHY COMPLAIN?

Black's Law Dictionary is a "Specialty" Dictionary

Think #13-Penalty Statutes

Going after the wrong people

How you are controlled by private corporations
Merry Go Round

The beginning of the big lie

Reality

Are you a member of a community?

Flawed redemption process

Regroup to find the truth

Documents 

TAXES

Sometimes Criminals Speak Truth

THE 1913 INCOME TAX FRAUD
WHAT DOES FEDERAL REALLY MEAN

Assessment Authority

26 USC 6331 Authorizing IRS

True Nature of Withholding Tax 1942 Revenue Act

What To Present Administratively That You Have No Income

 

Why All States Depend on Federal Determination to Tax You

Treasury Letter of 1866

TERMS not WORDS

SS# and TIN IS NOT THE SAME

The why's and wherefore's of the tax system

Tax Series #8-IRS not authorized to file Fed Tax Liens

Tax Series #9-Security and Money

Excise taxes Person and Taxes

Excise Taxes

1998 List of IRS sections affected
Person

Person Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust

Scumbags

 

WAR/EMERGENCY POWERS

The genesis of the emergency / war powers ACT
War Powers in America today
The question is why?

 

SOCIAL SECURITY

Congress is the Beneficiary of the SS

When is a Social Security Number not a Social Security Number AND Will the real Beneficiary please stand up

The Liability Statute Imposing the SS Tax

The History of the American Bar

The Bar in America - Part I
Introductory - Law Without Lawyers - Part II
Lawyers in the Seventeenth Century - Part III

The Colonial Bar of Virginia and Maryland - Chapter II
Colonial Massachusetts Bar -Chapter III
Colonial New York, Pennsylvania & New Jersy Bar - Chapter IV
Colonial Southern Bar - Chapter V
New England Colonial Bar - Chapter VI
The Law & Lawyers in England in the Eighteenth Century-Chapter VII
Early American Barristers, & Bar Associations - Chapter IX
Part II - Federal Bar -Chapter X
The Federal Bar and Law, 1789-1815-Chapter XI
The Federal Bar & the Law, 1815-1830-Chapter XV
The Federal Bar & Law - 1830-1860 - Chapter XVI
The Progress of the Law - 1830-1860 - Chapter XVII
The Rise of Railroad & Corporation Law - Chapter XVIII

Admiralty

Addendum to "The New History of America"
Padleford Case & Standing

Admiralty Rules

Admiralty in Tax Cases

 

 

1868 Inaugural Speech of Governor Worth

The Informer

     The below is each page as scanned in of the 1868 Inaugural Speech of Governor Worth who was appointed by the PresidentBalthough he says elected in his speech, thereby ousting the then elected present north carolina governor. Worth was a straight military man. Please note the passage where Worth says the Congress gives us rights. He does not say God or unalienable rights.

Sincerely,
The Informer
April 2002

******************

INAUGURAL

Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Commons:
     It is known to you that the pressure of' important official duties, for some days past, has left me no time for the preparation of a formal inaugural address.
     The orders of General Sickles, forbidding our Courts to exercise laws which have existed with us and our ancestors for many hundred years, in the face of the previous proclamation of the President, declaring that civil law existed in all the States which had engaged in the late rebellion, astounded the State.
     My mission to Washington touching this encroachment on the right of the State to administer her laws, not pretended to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, and other imperative administrative duties since my return, have engrossed my attention and left me no time to prepare an address suitable for the occasion.
     This order of a military officer, asserting, in effect, his right to annul such of our laws as he may deem unwise, is suspended by order of the President. This arbitrary step is scarcely arrested, when a measure is proposed by Congress, looking to the sanction of this military supremacy over our laws.
     In the midst of the progress of these events we are astounded by a proposition, originated by North Carolinians, and brought before Congress under auspices calculated to alarm us, that North Carolina, one of the original thirteen, is no longer a State, but a territory of the United States.
     The scheme proposes that a new Convention be called, the members of which are to be elected by voters with qualifications prescribed by Congress, including negroes, excluded from voting by our Constitution. This Convention, thus elected, is to frame a new Constitution for the District formerly known as the State of North Carolina. The Constitution, when formed, is to be approved, not by the people, who are to live under it, but by the Congress of the United States, with power in the Congress to approve, modify, or reject the same: and with a test oath framed with apparent intent to reverse the principle, that the majority of the people to rule.
     It is remarkable that the avowed and prominent projectors of this scheme were distinguished actors in the origination of the present State government, and have sought, or hold office under it.
     Under these circumstances, I assume, by the choice countrymen, the painfully responsible duties of Governor the State, without time, in carefully considered to review these revolutionary movements.
      I can only add to the solemn oath which I have just taken, that feeling profoundly the responsibility of the position which I am placed by the confidence of my countrymen, shall constantly and fervently pray that the Ruler of the universe will endow me with wisdom equal to the emergencies.
     I ardently desire, independent of my official oath, to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Carolina, and cannot, therefore, to any scheme of compromise based on the idea that North Carolina is not a State of the American Union; nor to scheme of amending the original compact, which the shall have no hand in proposing. I feel as profoundly as any body can feel, the necessity of composing, on a permanent basis, our national dissensions, and have been unable to conceive of any other means so well adapted to effect as that prescribed by the wisdom of our fathers in the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States.
     My intercourse with the people of the North leads me to believe, that the great body of them do not entertain towards us the destroying malevolence, which we would infer from the speeches of many of their intemperate partizan leaders and a portion of the press. The great mass of the nation is patriotic, with becoming charity for what they deem the errors of other sections; but the partizan fury of ambitious demagogues keeps in restraint the will of the great and well meaning masses. If a national Convention could be called, as contemplated in the Constitution, these masses, as I believe, would fill it with sober, and wise, and patriotic men. In such a Convention, proper concessions would be made to the feelings and views of every section. All could be heard. The spirit of compromise, by which the parts of a great nation can alone be held together, would have its due weight. Under the provisions of this article, the amendments to the Constitution, which such national Convention might propose, would have no validity until ratified by three-fifths of the States.
     If my wishes could prevail, North Carolina would be the 'first State in the Union to hold up to the nation its constitutional olive branch.
     I trust that I need not assure you, that no act of mine, official or personal, under any circumstances, will give any countenance to the parricidal scheme of erasing North Carolina from the galaxy of States of the American Union. In making this declaration, I desire to deny the possible implication that there is, within my knowledge, any other patriotic citizen of the State, who would voluntarily assent to such degradation.
     In my very childhood the lessons of parental instruction taught and impressed on my heart affection for the American Union. The civil war through which we have passed has not erased these impressions. The reflection of riper years but strengthened them. When, in spite of my remonstrances, a sectional war arose, my sympathies and my duty, as I conceived, required me to yield obedience to the defacto government of the section in which I lived; but when the party claiming to fight for the preservation of the Union prevailed, I gladly renewed my allegiance to the Union, and will not now invite its dissolution by an act of Congress.
     My recent intercourse and observation of the press force me to the conclusion that the main ailment of continued sectional alienation and obstruction "to the restoration of fraternal feeling," which ought to "be the earnest wish of every patriotic heart," is the false and persistent misrepresentation, emanating from bad men in our midst, who seek to make the impression that our Courts and juries, in the administration of justice, discriminate to the prejudice of Union men and our late slaves.
     Notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts of our Judiciary, well known to every body here, to have justice impartially administered, a studied effort is persistently kept up, with too much success, to mislead the minds of well meaning people in the dominant States.
     Let us not despair. We still have the Constitution, which, in the language of the great and good Gaston, "With-all its pretended defects and all its alleged violations, has conferred more benefit on man than ever yet flowed from any other institution, and which, under God, if we be true to ourselves, will insure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity." If this temple of liberty is to be destroyed, I pray that North Carolina may have no hand in this act of vandalism. Let us in our forlorn condition emulate the example of the present chief magistrate of the nation, who, amidst the tempest of fury which assails him, firmly steers the ship of State by this chart of our liberties, and is thus inscribing his name high on the temple of fame.
     Besides the protection to our constitutional rights, which the Executive may give us, I trust and believe the Supreme Court of the United states, the ultimate arbiter of such questions, arising under the constitution, as can be brought under its jurisdiction, may be relied on for an intelligent and fair discharge of its high functions, and I do not entirely despair that Congress may become better advised, and cease to engender dislike to the government by unfounded suspicions of our loyalty.
     I do not deem it necessary to add anything to my recent recommendations as to our State affairs. All the information I have been able to obtain tends strongly to confirm my recommendation, that we should promptly erect a penitentiary; and that every citizen of the State, by precept and example; should encourage domestic manufactures, and to carry out this recommendation as far as I can by example, I appear before you to-day, clothed in the handiwork of North Carolina manufacturers and made up by North Carolina mechanics.
     As you are about to leave for your respective homes, I trust you will feel it individually your duty to exhort your constituents to attend diligently and quietly to their respective callings; to offer no opposition to any law, State or National, which they may deem unconstitutional, excepting through the regular channel of the courts; to be diligent in bringing malefactors to justice, and thereby giving security to the orderly.
     Gloomy and impoverished and depressed, as are our people, if they continue quietly to discharge all their duties, in the end they may expect the rewards which usually follow well doing.
     I avail myself of this occasion to return my thanks to the people of the State for the comparative unanimity with which they have re-elected me as their Governor; and I pray God to inspire me with all those qualities of the head and of the heart, necessary to perform aright the duties of my responsible position in this trying period of our history.

Doc. No. 25

 

When was State Sovereignty Lost?

The Informer

Prelude

     I must start out with this prelude after writing the article below on sovereignty loss. I realized that people have not understanding of sovereignty and others that still control this land and people. This is similar to the Wizard of Oz after the curtain was lifted to just who the Wizard was. The curtain has not been lifted enought for the people of America to see.

     To be absolutely correct on sovereignty, the people of 1776 to the present, have never been sovereign, period. Because the United States is a controlled corporation of the Crown, the people could never have been sovereign. All the people did, after the so-called revolutionary war, was trade the Corporation of England to be controlled by the Corporation of the States. These were plantation colonies of the Crown in corporate structure before the planned war. Those agents of the Crown, the founding father lawyers, controlled by the middle and inner temples of the Crown, took control of the states (colonies) in the 1787 contract/covenant/constitution. So technically and legally, and even lawfully, the common people like yu and I have never been sovereign.

     Think about it and reflect on what I say. When Governor Caswell of north carolina immediately eliminated the quitrent tax of the Crown and laid a property tax on the people and land, after becoming the first Governor, how on earth were the people sovereign? If they were sovereign there would be no way to lay a property tax and take that property if the people did not pay this tax. This happened in every state at that time, proving people were still controlled and were not sovereign. The article below was written with the mindset that all people have an understanding that the myth of sovereignty existed in this country for the common people.

When was State Sovereignty Lost?

     The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the erection of the US Constitution. The 1791 debacle of Washington was the second attack and the third started in earnest circa 1819 with the Bank case of McCulloch v Maryland. You have to know that Justice Marshall was a major stock holder in that bank with 7700 shares and was declared a Aforeign stockholder." Yes, he was a Federal US judge and "citizen" of the U.S., but the bank was the foreign controlled Exchequer of England. That's why he was deemed a Aforeign stockholder." To rule contrary to his decision would have put his stock in peril. Money rules, correct? It does today and it did then.

Eastern and Northern States almost unanimously praised the decision of McCulloch.
      On the other hand, the papers of the States upholding the theories of Jefferson and the strict States' Rights doctrines bitterly assailed it. Niles' Register of March 13 said:

     "A deadly blow has been struck at the Sovereignty of the States, and from a quarter so far removed from the people as to be hardly accessible to public opinion ....We are awfully impressed with a conviction that the welfare of the Union has received a more dangerous wound than fifty Hartford Conventions, hateful as that assemblage was, could inflict . . . and which may be wielded to destroy the whole revenues and so do away with the Sovereignties of the States."

     The Richmond Enquirer said: "If such a spirit as breathes on this opinion is forever to preside over the judiciary, then indeed it is high time for the State to tremble; that all their great rights may be swept away one by one, that those sovereign States may dwindle into paltry and contemptible corporations."
      Chief Justice Marshall wrote to Judge Story, May 27, 1819
     "This opinion in the Bank case continues to be denounced by the democracy in Virginia. An effort is certainly making to induce the Legislature which will meet in December, to take up the subject and to pass resolutions very like those which were called forth by the alien and sedition laws in I799 ....If the principles which have been advanced on this occasion were to prevail, the constitution would be converted into the old Confederation."

     Please note above that the states were corporations, not that they were going to be. They were corporations of the Crown in the newly formed King's government named the States and United States. They were absorbed under the U.S. Constitution and became members of the Motherland corporation. This goes with exactly what was stated in James Montgomery's works on the Crown controlling. Wizard, if you so wish to see after the curtain raising.

     In 1821, the great question of State Sovereignty was again the important subject before the Court; and on March 3-5 Marshall rendered his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264), reaffirming the supreme power of the Court to review decisions of the State courts in criminal as well as civil proceedings. Philip P. Barbour I and Alexander Smythe appeared for the State of Virginia, and William Pinkney and David B. Ogden for the plaintiff.
     The decision caused much excitement in the newspapers of the country, and was bitterly attacked by the upholders of States' Rights in letters and speeches.

Niles' Register said, March 17, 1821:
      "The decision was exactly such as expected for we presumed that that high tribunal would act consistently and on the termination of the case about the bank of the United States, McCulloch v. Maryland, we had no manner of doubt as to the result . . . and that the State Sovereignty would be taught to bow to the judiciary-of the United States. So we go. It seems as if almost everything that occurs had for its tendency that which every reflecting man deprecates."

On July 7, 1821, Niles' Register said:
     "The decision . . . still claims the attention Of some of our ablest writers, and the correctness of it is contested with a fine display of talents and profound reasoning by `Algeron Sidney' in the 'Richmond Enquirer and Hampden' in the Washington City Gazette - - to which we refer those who are not already satisfied on the subject. For ourselves, though not exactly prepared to submit, it seems as if it were required that all who do not subscribe to their belief in the infallibility of that court are in danger of political excommunication."

Of the criticism on the case, Marshall wrote to Story,
June 15, 1821:
     "The opinion of the Supreme Court in the lottery case has been assailed with a degree of virulence transcending what has appeared on former occasions . . . I think for coarseness and malignity of invention Algernon Sidney [Spencer Roane, Judge of the Virginia Court of Errors and Appeals] surpasses all party writers who have ever made pretensions to any decency of character."

     Corruption of the courts ran rampant then as it does now, only not quite as bad as now; see the next caseYou can also see that Washington was a corporation then, as it always has been via the Crown's control. This just bears out what James has and I have, on the corporate structure, via our researched documents.

Jefferson's views of the opinion were vigorously expressed by him two years later in a letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823:
     "On the decision of Cohens v. State of Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1821, Judge Roane (presiding judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia) under the signature of Algernon Sidney wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confess that they appeared to me to pulverize every word that had been delivered by Judge Marshall of the extra-judicial part of his opinion, and all was extra-judicial, except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their lottery of controlling the laws of the States within the States themselves.
     "The practice of Judge Marshall of travelling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court is very irregular and very censurable."

     The most alarming effect of the opposition to the strong centralizing tendency of the Supreme Court opinions was the steady increase of propositions to limit the powers of that Court by legislation or constitutional amendment. Those who favored such measures pointed to the fact that between 1809 and 1822 the Court had exercised its power to declare unconstitutional, in whole or in part, nine statutes in eight States (Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Louisiana and Pennsylvania).

Jefferson wrote, January 19, 1821:
"I am sensible of the inroads daily making by the Federal into the jurisdiction of its co-ordinate associates, the State governments. Its legislative and executive branches may sometimes err, but elections and dependence will bring them to rights. The judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass."

On September 2, 1821, he wrote:

     "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, is very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is 'boni judices est amplifcare jurisdictionem,' and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."

     Well, this is a revelation for those of you that just love the Supreme Court in all it's corruption. We researchers have known this for a long time and they have become despots as have all other bar member judges.

On December 25, 1820, Jefferson had written to Thomas Ritchie:
     "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone .... Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they skulk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge who sophisticates the law to his mind by the turn of his own reasoning.
     A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."
See Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol X, pp. 169, 184, 197, 246.

And again, on March 4, 1823, he wrote:

     "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our governmentby the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court."

     Already in 1807-1809, soon after the Burr trial, attempts had been made in each branch of Congress to amend the Constitution so that all judges should hold office for a term of years and be removable by the President on address by two-thirds of both Houses. This proposition was supported by resolves of the Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Vermont, as well as by the actions of the House of Delegates in Virginia and one branch of the legislature of Tennessee..

    Well there you have it, the board of directors of the corporations of Washington and States are just doing what corporate officers wantNow comes the proof as to why you all are part of these corporations that James and I have stated over and over - - that citizenship is the bane of man, whether state or United StatesGo ahead and vote . But, as Lysander Spooner said, it is a vote thrown to the winds and also snares you into their corporation as you vote for the CEO of that corporation as a "stockholder.If you don't believe me read on and you make the decision because corporate citizenship did not start with the 14th amendment, much to your surprise.

     One other decision of the United States Supreme Court during this period had immense effect on the growth of modern corporate commerce.
     From 1809 to 1844, it had been held by that Court, ever since the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux (5 Cranch, 61), that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, in a case where a corporation was a party, unless all the individual stockholders of the corporation were citizens of a State other than that of the other party to the suit. Such a doctrine of course greatly restricted the rights of a corporation to sue in a Federal Court, and made such suit almost impossible.
     In 1844, however, in Louisville R. R v. Letson (2 Howard, 497) Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion, taking the broad ground that a corporation, although an artificial person, was to be deemed an inhabitant of the State of its incorporation, and to be treated as a citizen of that State for purposes of suit. Of this case, Judge Story, wrote to Ex-Chancellor Kent, August 3I, I844:
     "I equally rejoice, that the Supreme Court has at last come to the conclusion, that a corporation is a citizen, an artificial citizen, I agree, but still a citizen. It gets rid of a great anomaly in our jurisprudence. This was always Judge Washington's opinion. I have held the same opinion for very many years, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall had, before his death, arrived at the conclusion, that our early decisions were wrong."

     Now remember people, the states and United States are corporations as stated above. An inhabitant is a resident -- is a citizen of that corporation and deemed an artificial character. Just look at the case of the United States v Penelope Fed. Case 27 no. 16024 in my book The New History of America,  page 69. "Inhabitant" and "resident" mean the same thing so said the court. Now you ask how did I become an artificial? By joint venture. This is also found in my New History  at pages 10, 11, 21, 31,46, 47, 56, 69, 70, 75 and 90 because it is the lynchpin to your problems. Pull the N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587. In here is the explanation as to why they can tax you.

     In 1853, in Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. (16 Howard, 314) it was held that there was a conclusive presumption of law that all the shareholders were citizens of the State of incorporation; and this was further strengthened by a decision in 1857, in Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd (20 Howard, 227) that parties were to be held estopped from denying such citizenship.

  Although talking about railroad the same principle applies to states. As stated above, irrefutably, Washington is a corporation and has citizens. States are corporations and have citizens. Are you a citizen of either? Are you then in a "joint venture"? Do you claim to be a "resident" or "inhabitant?" Are you then a "person" by association with either corporation? Is this word in the definition of 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1)?  Therefore, under this rinciple a "U.S. citizen" is a citizen of the incorporating United States and that is why in 26 U.S.C 7701 (a) 39 it states what it does. Are you starting to get the picture? Not quite? Well read this as printed in my book.

     Under "joint-venture" principle all people who are "citizens of the State" are United States citizens, and are in contract with the State in its corporate capacity. Therefore, if and when they buy property privately from the United States it does revert back to the State. They are only holding the property of the State in a fiduciary capacity paying rent in the form of an ad valorem tax. This is where the government has conned us again. It is a vicious cycle. Therefore, the U.S. can tax the fiduciary holding State property because they are citizens, or joint-venturers, with the State in its corporate capacity. This is because the states are nothing more than "Districts" of the U.S. [as stated in my book when quoting the 1868 Inaugural address of Governor Holden of north carolina at page 10] and due to the War Powers Act they are also "agents of the federal government." This was discovered by Dr. Eugene Schroder in the "Health and Human Service Acts" of the states. This allows the U.S. to seek out and tax its subjects, people claiming "citizenship" of the state, for they are also U.S. citizens by congress' definition of "individual," See 5 USC 552a A 2.

Definition of Joint venture found in N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587

"In order to constitute a joint venture, a joint enterprise, or common purpose there must be an agreement [your claim of citizenship and/or registering to vote for the CEO] to enter into an undertaking in respect of which the parties have a community of interest and a common purpose for its performance. [don't all citizens have a common interest?] * * *
There is no legal distinction between the phrases `joint enterprise' and `prosecution of a common purpose.' The effect of the formation of a joint enterprise is to make all members responsible for the negligence of any member available who injures a third person and to make the negligence of any member available as a defense by a third person to a recovery by another member." [does this sound like social security?]

End of quoting my book at page 10 and 11.

     These decisions not only opened the door wide to interstate commerce by corporations, but they were of vast importance in breaking down the barriers sought to be erected by the political supporters of the narrow States' Rights doctrines, and in increasing the strength of the Federal power.
     In one direction, the great growth of corporations made necessary the development of a branch of corporate law to which little attention had hitherto been paid --- the limits of the scope of corporate action and the doctrine of ultra vires. As stated in the preface to the first book on this subject, Brice on Ultra Vires published in 1874, it is said:
     "The doctrine of ultra virus is of modern growth. Its appearance as a distinct fact and as a guiding and rather misleading principle in the legal system of this country dates from about 1845, being first prominently mentioned in the cases, in equity of Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (10 Beavan, 1) in 1846, and at law of East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (11 C. B. 775) in 1851."
     In the United States Supreme Court, however, in 1858, it was referred to as "not a new principle in the jurisprudence of this Court."

     For interesting articles on this subject see A Legal Fiction with its Wings Clipped, by S. E. Baldwin, in Amer. Law Review, Vol. XLI (1907). Abrogation of Federal Jurisdiction, by Alfred Russell, Harv. Law Review, Vol. VII (1892). Corporate Citizenship a Legal Fiction, by R. M. Benjamin, Albany Law Journal, Vol. LXIX (1907).

     Well that's about enough for you to absorb and please check this out as I am not perfect.

Sincerely,
The Informer
April 10, 2002

 

Subcategories

Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States - 1930

Page 7 of 60