You worry about Canada, we got our own country. Drives me nuts when people from another country, especially from the common wealth, tries to assume things and tell us how to fix ours. You forget, we still have our 2A rights that we are trying every avenue not to use them. We have been fighting the world for everyone else long enough.
I see there and here, in Canada, abject ignorance. It drives me nuts that people will\can not see what appears before them! The enemy is not here to write letters or swap ideas of who should retain the seat of power and it's WORLDWIDE! Your enemy is here to take over! NOT vote you out! Learn this for at least it will comfort you alittle in that you have recalled enough of what you read, to keep the shock level tolerable when it comes. And it is very close!
The Clayton Act, officially known as the "Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914," is a U.S. federal law that seeks to prevent anti-competitive practices in their incipience. It complements the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and is designed to prohibit particular types of conduct that are not necessarily covered by the older act.
Here are some key sections of the Clayton Act as found in the U.S. legal code:
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §12. Definitions; short title: This section defines the term "antitrust laws" and includes the Clayton Act within that definition. It also defines "commerce" and the term "person" for the purposes of the Act.
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §35. Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity: This section prohibits the recovery of damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees under the Clayton Act from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §36. Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations on claim against person based on official action directed by local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity: Similar to the previous section, this section also prohibits the recovery of damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees under the Clayton Act in any claim against a person based on any official action directed by a local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.
TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING, CHAPTER 34—FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL, §3208. Powers available to Attorney General for enforcement: This section makes all functions and powers of the Attorney General under the Clayton Act available for the enforcement of this section, irrespective of any jurisdictional tests in the Clayton Act.
TITLE 46—SHIPPING, CHAPTER 405—TARIFFS, SERVICE CONTRACTS, REFUNDS, AND WAIVERS, §40307. Exemption from antitrust laws: This section provides certain exemptions from the antitrust laws, including the Clayton Act, for agreements and activities related to shipping and trade.
The U.S. legal system is complex and multifaceted, with different types of law (constitutional, statutory, contract, etc.) interacting in various ways. If you have specific questions about how these laws apply to a particular situation, it would be best to consult with a legal professional.
The British Accreditation Registry (BAR) is not a term found in U.S. law. The term "BAR" in the context of law typically refers to the Bar of a particular jurisdiction, such as the State Bar of California or the New York State Bar Association. These organizations are responsible for the regulation of lawyers within their jurisdiction, including admission to practice law and disciplinary actions. The term "BAR" originally referred to the physical barrier in a courtroom beyond which only participants in a trial may go, and by extension, the profession of being a lawyer.
The U.S. law does mention accreditation agencies in the context of education. For instance, Title 20 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 28, Subchapter IV, Section 1099b discusses the recognition of accrediting agencies or associations for institutions of higher education. It outlines the rules and regulations for such agencies, including their jurisdiction, the impact of loss of accreditation, regulations, and the length of recognition. However, these laws pertain to educational institutions and not to legal practice or the court system.
Your post also mentions the concept of "titles of nobility," which seems to be a reference to the so-called "Titles of Nobility Amendment" (TONA). This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced in 1810 and would have stripped U.S. citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. However, it was never ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution.
The post you shared seems to be based on a number of misconceptions and conspiracy theories. For instance, the idea that the U.S. government or courts have been "stolen" by the British through the BAR is not supported by any credible evidence or legal theory. Similarly, the claim that people are turned into "trustees" through the issuance of a birth certificate or that constitutional rights have been converted into "civil rights" is not accurate.
In the U.S. legal system, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or action by the government that conflicts with the Constitution can be challenged in court and struck down. This includes both federal and state laws, as well as actions by government officials. The courts, including the Supreme Court, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means and whether a particular law or action is constitutional.
The idea of revoking consent to be governed and refusing to use Federal Reserve Notes (the U.S. dollar) is not a practical or legal solution to perceived problems with the government. The U.S. government is established by the Constitution and derives its power from the consent of the governed, as expressed through the our Constitutional Federal Republic process. While people are free to express their dissatisfaction with the government and to advocate for changes, they cannot simply opt out of being subject to its laws. Similarly, the U.S. dollar is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and refusing to use it would not exempt a person from their legal obligations.
The claim that the U.S. government or courts have been "stolen" by the British through the BAR is not supported by any credible evidence or legal theory that I have found. The BAR, or Bar Association, is a professional body of lawyers. The term "BAR" is often said to stand for "British Accreditation Regency" or "British Accreditation Registry", suggesting a link to British control, but this is a myth.
The term "bar" in this context actually comes from the physical barrier in a courtroom that separates the lawyers and judges from the rest of the court. Passing the "bar" refers to being admitted to court to practice law.
The belief that the British control the U.S. courts likely stems from what I believe a misunderstanding of the origins and influences on the U.S. legal system. The U.S. legal system is indeed influenced by English common law, which was the legal system in place in England at the time of the American Revolution. This influence is seen in many aspects of U.S. law, from the concept of precedent (where past court decisions influence future ones) to certain legal terms and principles.
The U.S. legal system is based on its own Constitution and laws, not controlled by any foreign entity. The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, is the supreme law of the land. All laws and government actions must conform to it. The Constitution establishes the structure of the federal government, delineates its powers, and guarantees individual rights.
The U.S. legal system is also influenced by the common law tradition, which is based on court decisions rather than laws enacted by legislatures. This is a system that originated in England but has been fully incorporated into the U.S. legal system.
The U.S. legal system is complex and multi-layered, with federal laws, state laws, and judicial decisions all playing a role. Federal laws are created by Congress and apply to the entire nation. State laws are created by state legislatures and apply within each individual state. Judicial decisions from federal and state courts interpret these laws and can establish legal precedents.
The U.S. legal system also includes administrative law, which is law created by administrative agencies. This can include rules, regulations, orders, and decisions created by federal, state, or local government agencies.
In terms of the precedence of laws, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. Federal laws made in accordance with the Constitution are the next highest, followed by state constitutions, state laws, and then local laws. If a law at any level conflicts with a higher law, the higher law takes precedence.
However, this influence does not equate to control. After the American Revolution, the newly formed United States established its own Constitution and legal system. While it drew upon English common law for many of its principles, it also incorporated unique elements, such as a written Constitution and a system of federalism that divides power between the federal and state governments.
While the U.S. legal system has been influenced by English common law, it is an independent system governed by the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws. The belief that the British control the U.S. courts is a misunderstanding of these historical and legal complexities.
The legal system of the United States has a rich and complex history that has evolved over centuries. It is a system that is deeply rooted in principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
The legal system of the United States has its roots in English common law, which was brought to the New World by early settlers. Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is a body of law based on judicial decisions rather than statutes passed by legislatures. It originated in medieval England and was applied within British colonies across continents. The essence of common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. Over time, these legal decisions, or case law, build up a body of law.
The United States Code, which is the codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States, was first published in 1926 by the House of Representatives.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the foundation of military law in the United States, was established by the United States Congress on May 5, 1950, and it became effective on May 31, 1951.
Before the United States Code was established in 1926, federal laws in the United States were organized into the Revised Statutes of the United States, enacted in 1874, and the Statutes at Large.
The Statutes at Large is a comprehensive collection of the laws of the United States from 1789 to the present, arranged chronologically. It includes all the laws passed by the U.S. Congress, in the order in which they were enacted.
The Revised Statutes of the United States was the first official codification of the Acts of Congress. It compiled all the permanent laws in force as of December 1, 1873. However, it was superseded by the United States Code in 1926.
It's important to note that the U.S. also operates under a system of common law, which means that many laws and legal principles are derived from court decisions. This system was inherited from the English legal tradition.
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.)
You worry about Canada, we got our own country. Drives me nuts when people from another country, especially from the common wealth, tries to assume things and tell us how to fix ours. You forget, we still have our 2A rights that we are trying every avenue not to use them. We have been fighting the world for everyone else long enough.
I see there and here, in Canada, abject ignorance. It drives me nuts that people will\can not see what appears before them! The enemy is not here to write letters or swap ideas of who should retain the seat of power and it's WORLDWIDE! Your enemy is here to take over! NOT vote you out! Learn this for at least it will comfort you alittle in that you have recalled enough of what you read, to keep the shock level tolerable when it comes. And it is very close!
Either way, I’m focused on local
Government and giving ones tools to get involved and succeed.
3.
The Clayton Act, officially known as the "Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914," is a U.S. federal law that seeks to prevent anti-competitive practices in their incipience. It complements the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and is designed to prohibit particular types of conduct that are not necessarily covered by the older act.
Here are some key sections of the Clayton Act as found in the U.S. legal code:
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §12. Definitions; short title: This section defines the term "antitrust laws" and includes the Clayton Act within that definition. It also defines "commerce" and the term "person" for the purposes of the Act.
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §35. Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity: This section prohibits the recovery of damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees under the Clayton Act from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE, CHAPTER 1—MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, §36. Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations on claim against person based on official action directed by local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity: Similar to the previous section, this section also prohibits the recovery of damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees under the Clayton Act in any claim against a person based on any official action directed by a local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.
TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING, CHAPTER 34—FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL, §3208. Powers available to Attorney General for enforcement: This section makes all functions and powers of the Attorney General under the Clayton Act available for the enforcement of this section, irrespective of any jurisdictional tests in the Clayton Act.
TITLE 46—SHIPPING, CHAPTER 405—TARIFFS, SERVICE CONTRACTS, REFUNDS, AND WAIVERS, §40307. Exemption from antitrust laws: This section provides certain exemptions from the antitrust laws, including the Clayton Act, for agreements and activities related to shipping and trade.
2.
The U.S. legal system is complex and multifaceted, with different types of law (constitutional, statutory, contract, etc.) interacting in various ways. If you have specific questions about how these laws apply to a particular situation, it would be best to consult with a legal professional.
The British Accreditation Registry (BAR) is not a term found in U.S. law. The term "BAR" in the context of law typically refers to the Bar of a particular jurisdiction, such as the State Bar of California or the New York State Bar Association. These organizations are responsible for the regulation of lawyers within their jurisdiction, including admission to practice law and disciplinary actions. The term "BAR" originally referred to the physical barrier in a courtroom beyond which only participants in a trial may go, and by extension, the profession of being a lawyer.
The U.S. law does mention accreditation agencies in the context of education. For instance, Title 20 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 28, Subchapter IV, Section 1099b discusses the recognition of accrediting agencies or associations for institutions of higher education. It outlines the rules and regulations for such agencies, including their jurisdiction, the impact of loss of accreditation, regulations, and the length of recognition. However, these laws pertain to educational institutions and not to legal practice or the court system.
Your post also mentions the concept of "titles of nobility," which seems to be a reference to the so-called "Titles of Nobility Amendment" (TONA). This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced in 1810 and would have stripped U.S. citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. However, it was never ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution.
The post you shared seems to be based on a number of misconceptions and conspiracy theories. For instance, the idea that the U.S. government or courts have been "stolen" by the British through the BAR is not supported by any credible evidence or legal theory. Similarly, the claim that people are turned into "trustees" through the issuance of a birth certificate or that constitutional rights have been converted into "civil rights" is not accurate.
In the U.S. legal system, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or action by the government that conflicts with the Constitution can be challenged in court and struck down. This includes both federal and state laws, as well as actions by government officials. The courts, including the Supreme Court, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means and whether a particular law or action is constitutional.
The idea of revoking consent to be governed and refusing to use Federal Reserve Notes (the U.S. dollar) is not a practical or legal solution to perceived problems with the government. The U.S. government is established by the Constitution and derives its power from the consent of the governed, as expressed through the our Constitutional Federal Republic process. While people are free to express their dissatisfaction with the government and to advocate for changes, they cannot simply opt out of being subject to its laws. Similarly, the U.S. dollar is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and refusing to use it would not exempt a person from their legal obligations.
The claim that the U.S. government or courts have been "stolen" by the British through the BAR is not supported by any credible evidence or legal theory that I have found. The BAR, or Bar Association, is a professional body of lawyers. The term "BAR" is often said to stand for "British Accreditation Regency" or "British Accreditation Registry", suggesting a link to British control, but this is a myth.
The term "bar" in this context actually comes from the physical barrier in a courtroom that separates the lawyers and judges from the rest of the court. Passing the "bar" refers to being admitted to court to practice law.
The belief that the British control the U.S. courts likely stems from what I believe a misunderstanding of the origins and influences on the U.S. legal system. The U.S. legal system is indeed influenced by English common law, which was the legal system in place in England at the time of the American Revolution. This influence is seen in many aspects of U.S. law, from the concept of precedent (where past court decisions influence future ones) to certain legal terms and principles.
The U.S. legal system is based on its own Constitution and laws, not controlled by any foreign entity. The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, is the supreme law of the land. All laws and government actions must conform to it. The Constitution establishes the structure of the federal government, delineates its powers, and guarantees individual rights.
The U.S. legal system is also influenced by the common law tradition, which is based on court decisions rather than laws enacted by legislatures. This is a system that originated in England but has been fully incorporated into the U.S. legal system.
The U.S. legal system is complex and multi-layered, with federal laws, state laws, and judicial decisions all playing a role. Federal laws are created by Congress and apply to the entire nation. State laws are created by state legislatures and apply within each individual state. Judicial decisions from federal and state courts interpret these laws and can establish legal precedents.
The U.S. legal system also includes administrative law, which is law created by administrative agencies. This can include rules, regulations, orders, and decisions created by federal, state, or local government agencies.
In terms of the precedence of laws, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. Federal laws made in accordance with the Constitution are the next highest, followed by state constitutions, state laws, and then local laws. If a law at any level conflicts with a higher law, the higher law takes precedence.
However, this influence does not equate to control. After the American Revolution, the newly formed United States established its own Constitution and legal system. While it drew upon English common law for many of its principles, it also incorporated unique elements, such as a written Constitution and a system of federalism that divides power between the federal and state governments.
While the U.S. legal system has been influenced by English common law, it is an independent system governed by the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws. The belief that the British control the U.S. courts is a misunderstanding of these historical and legal complexities.
The legal system of the United States has a rich and complex history that has evolved over centuries. It is a system that is deeply rooted in principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
The legal system of the United States has its roots in English common law, which was brought to the New World by early settlers. Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is a body of law based on judicial decisions rather than statutes passed by legislatures. It originated in medieval England and was applied within British colonies across continents. The essence of common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. Over time, these legal decisions, or case law, build up a body of law.
The United States Code, which is the codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States, was first published in 1926 by the House of Representatives.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the foundation of military law in the United States, was established by the United States Congress on May 5, 1950, and it became effective on May 31, 1951.
Before the United States Code was established in 1926, federal laws in the United States were organized into the Revised Statutes of the United States, enacted in 1874, and the Statutes at Large.
The Statutes at Large is a comprehensive collection of the laws of the United States from 1789 to the present, arranged chronologically. It includes all the laws passed by the U.S. Congress, in the order in which they were enacted.
The Revised Statutes of the United States was the first official codification of the Acts of Congress. It compiled all the permanent laws in force as of December 1, 1873. However, it was superseded by the United States Code in 1926.
It's important to note that the U.S. also operates under a system of common law, which means that many laws and legal principles are derived from court decisions. This system was inherited from the English legal tradition.
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.)