Much of what you've posted aligns with the research I've been conducting for months. It's fascinating how much one can learn when investigating various theories. However, the investigation of theories is largely based on perspective - what are you looking for? What outcome do you desire? When any of these variables are charged with a s…
Much of what you've posted aligns with the research I've been conducting for months. It's fascinating how much one can learn when investigating various theories. However, the investigation of theories is largely based on perspective - what are you looking for? What outcome do you desire? When any of these variables are charged with a specific motive or ideology, there's a tendency to interpret or perceive things in a way that satisfies those intentions.
Recently, I've been conducting research into the actual laws and examining how they apply to various subjects. I also consider how these laws are interpreted, which tends to be helpful.
However, if I find information on random websites that isn't based on any legal or court system, I can't entertain it because it simply isn't worth it. Many of the topics covered in this post need to be clarified, corrected, or made more precise. (Meaning the issues you bring up) The only way to achieve this, however, is to elect someone willing to do it. Changing the law isn't easy, but it is possible. I strive to approach things from a neutral perspective. I'm not instructing you on what to do; I'm merely offering some insight into my research methodology. I'm going to share what I've discovered. You may not agree with it, and if that's the case, I apologize. However, this is the information I've found specific to your points.
I believe that corporations in the United States need to be significantly reformed in many aspects. I also suspect that these corporations are promoting the idea that the United States is a corporation. I genuinely believe these narratives are being propagated by these corporations that feel threatened by the U.S. government. (Look up Regulatory capture) What better strategy than to convince you that the U.S. government is a corporation, thereby diverting attention from the real issue at hand?
The government does own federal corporations; there are government corporations, but they are distinct. Perhaps they, too, need to be significantly reformed. The only way to accomplish any of this is to examine the law, how it's interpreted, what's on the books, which jurisdictions matter, precedents, and so on. We can't fabricate things to make the situation seem easier. I'm not suggesting that you're doing this, but it appears that many of these ideas and theories are just that - attempts to simplify things when, in reality, they're making things more complicated.
The concept of a "legal statutory corporate straw-man" system, as you've described it, is not directly addressed in U.S. federal law. However, I can provide some information on the legal principles and theories that are often associated with this concept.
The term "straw-man" is often used in the context of the sovereign citizen movement, a group that believes, among other things, that they are separate or "sovereign" from the U.S. government. This belief leads them to argue that they are not subject to certain laws, taxes, and regulations. The "straw-man" theory suggests that a person's legal identity, often associated with their birth certificate or Social Security number, is separate from their physical identity. This theory is often used to argue that laws apply only to the "straw-man" and not to the physical person.
However, it's important to note that this theory is not recognized by U.S. courts. In fact, individuals who have attempted to use this theory as a defense in legal proceedings have often been unsuccessful.
For example, in the case of United States v. Benabe, defendants argued that they were "free of any legal constraints" and "had an absolute right to disregard the limitations placed upon them by the United States Constitution." The court rejected these arguments, stating that "defendants' theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk have been rejected by the courts."
In the case of United States v. Schneider, the defendant, a self-proclaimed "sovereign citizen," argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. The court dismissed this argument, stating that "federal courts have consistently rejected efforts to predicate challenges on the legal validity of the defendant's name or identity."
In United States v. Greenstreet, the defendant argued that he was a "freeborn and natural individual" and that the court did not have jurisdiction over him. The court rejected this argument, stating that "the theories of the sovereign citizen movement are entirely without legal basis."
These cases illustrate that the U.S. legal system does not recognize the concept of a "legal statutory corporate straw-man," and attempts to use this theory in court are generally unsuccessful.
There are laws that govern the formation and operation of corporations, both at the federal and state level. For example, under Title 36, Chapter 221 of the U.S. Code, The American Society of International Law is recognized as a federally chartered corporation with the power to adopt a constitution, bylaws, and regulations for the management of its property and affairs, among other powers.
Title 12, Chapter 53 of the U.S. Code outlines the powers and duties of the Corporation, which could be a financial institution or other entity. This includes the ability to act as a bridge financial company, with certain tax exemptions and obligations under contract law.
Title 15, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code addresses antitrust laws and prohibits the recovery of damages from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity, under certain sections of the Clayton Act. (Ill post that in a reply here.)
1.
Much of what you've posted aligns with the research I've been conducting for months. It's fascinating how much one can learn when investigating various theories. However, the investigation of theories is largely based on perspective - what are you looking for? What outcome do you desire? When any of these variables are charged with a specific motive or ideology, there's a tendency to interpret or perceive things in a way that satisfies those intentions.
Recently, I've been conducting research into the actual laws and examining how they apply to various subjects. I also consider how these laws are interpreted, which tends to be helpful.
However, if I find information on random websites that isn't based on any legal or court system, I can't entertain it because it simply isn't worth it. Many of the topics covered in this post need to be clarified, corrected, or made more precise. (Meaning the issues you bring up) The only way to achieve this, however, is to elect someone willing to do it. Changing the law isn't easy, but it is possible. I strive to approach things from a neutral perspective. I'm not instructing you on what to do; I'm merely offering some insight into my research methodology. I'm going to share what I've discovered. You may not agree with it, and if that's the case, I apologize. However, this is the information I've found specific to your points.
I believe that corporations in the United States need to be significantly reformed in many aspects. I also suspect that these corporations are promoting the idea that the United States is a corporation. I genuinely believe these narratives are being propagated by these corporations that feel threatened by the U.S. government. (Look up Regulatory capture) What better strategy than to convince you that the U.S. government is a corporation, thereby diverting attention from the real issue at hand?
The government does own federal corporations; there are government corporations, but they are distinct. Perhaps they, too, need to be significantly reformed. The only way to accomplish any of this is to examine the law, how it's interpreted, what's on the books, which jurisdictions matter, precedents, and so on. We can't fabricate things to make the situation seem easier. I'm not suggesting that you're doing this, but it appears that many of these ideas and theories are just that - attempts to simplify things when, in reality, they're making things more complicated.
The concept of a "legal statutory corporate straw-man" system, as you've described it, is not directly addressed in U.S. federal law. However, I can provide some information on the legal principles and theories that are often associated with this concept.
The term "straw-man" is often used in the context of the sovereign citizen movement, a group that believes, among other things, that they are separate or "sovereign" from the U.S. government. This belief leads them to argue that they are not subject to certain laws, taxes, and regulations. The "straw-man" theory suggests that a person's legal identity, often associated with their birth certificate or Social Security number, is separate from their physical identity. This theory is often used to argue that laws apply only to the "straw-man" and not to the physical person.
However, it's important to note that this theory is not recognized by U.S. courts. In fact, individuals who have attempted to use this theory as a defense in legal proceedings have often been unsuccessful.
For example, in the case of United States v. Benabe, defendants argued that they were "free of any legal constraints" and "had an absolute right to disregard the limitations placed upon them by the United States Constitution." The court rejected these arguments, stating that "defendants' theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk have been rejected by the courts."
In the case of United States v. Schneider, the defendant, a self-proclaimed "sovereign citizen," argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. The court dismissed this argument, stating that "federal courts have consistently rejected efforts to predicate challenges on the legal validity of the defendant's name or identity."
In United States v. Greenstreet, the defendant argued that he was a "freeborn and natural individual" and that the court did not have jurisdiction over him. The court rejected this argument, stating that "the theories of the sovereign citizen movement are entirely without legal basis."
These cases illustrate that the U.S. legal system does not recognize the concept of a "legal statutory corporate straw-man," and attempts to use this theory in court are generally unsuccessful.
There are laws that govern the formation and operation of corporations, both at the federal and state level. For example, under Title 36, Chapter 221 of the U.S. Code, The American Society of International Law is recognized as a federally chartered corporation with the power to adopt a constitution, bylaws, and regulations for the management of its property and affairs, among other powers.
Title 12, Chapter 53 of the U.S. Code outlines the powers and duties of the Corporation, which could be a financial institution or other entity. This includes the ability to act as a bridge financial company, with certain tax exemptions and obligations under contract law.
Title 15, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code addresses antitrust laws and prohibits the recovery of damages from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity, under certain sections of the Clayton Act. (Ill post that in a reply here.)