The Corporate U.S. began with the DC Organic Act of February 21, 1871.

[VALiberaltarian]

OK I just read all 12 pages of the posted document and it clearly states that it is creating a municipal corporation to service the administration of the District of Columbia. It then proceeds to lay out quite a bit of detail on the procedural legalisms of the district, clearly stating that the district and the corporation are subservient to the preexisting federal government. What specific language in there even comes close suspending the constitution and superseding the authority of the preexisting government with a corporate charter?

[JTCoyoté]

OK I just read all 12 pages of the posted document and it clearly states that it is creating a municipal corporation to service the administration of the District of Columbia. It then proceeds to lay out quite a bit of detail on the procedural legalisms of the district, clearly stating that the district and the corporation are subservient to the preexisting federal government. What specific language in there even comes close suspending the constitution and superseding the authority of the preexisting government with a corporate charter?

Please find the bolded language of your post for me, in the Act... I found the phrases "consistent with" and "not inconsistent with," but do not recall running across the word "subservient"... I haven't read it in a few months though, so I will read it again to refresh.

It is not specific language, that betrays it... It is how it is organized, administered, and by whom that is worrisome...

--Oldyoti

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more,
it will lose that, too."
~Somerset Maugham

[VALiberaltarian]

OK fair enough, I draw your attention to section 18:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extent to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

"but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted."

And section 31 explicitly discusses required oaths to uphold the constitution and under what conditions they must be met.

And section 25 states that the judiciary in DC cannot be restructured or changed without an explicit act of congress.

Those are just examples I picked out of the subservience to the pre-existing federal government. There's more in there. The way I understand it from reading this document the municipal corporation of DC has just enough power to wipe it's butt and not an ounce more. It certainly doesn't provide any legal grounds for overturning the constitution.

The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.

So what's the story about the by whom?       

[maim]

Is the sitting Congress the real Congress?

no, they are a board of directors for firm called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[maim]

The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.
       

indeed, all levels, fed, state and local are corporate.  whether the government is run by a corporation, or the government IS a corporation, either way, is not corporate government the exact definition of fascism?

[JTCoyoté]

OK fair enough, I draw your attention to section 18:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extent to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. That being the case, think of what meaning may be squeezed out of the 12 page text of this Act or invented from it... since it has been given equal power along side the Constitution by this 5 word statement.

"but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted."

This is a very sneaky way of giving power to congress over a corporate federal system... that by your previous quote has been given, without the peoples consent, extra-Constitutional power as provided by the 12 page Act over not only DC, but the ever growing federal districts throughout the nation that have been created by this act, including the federal courts and the so-called federal lands.

And section 31 explicitly discusses required oaths to uphold the constitution and under what conditions they must be met.

The oath here is only to support the Constitution, not to protect or defend it... A spider supports its pray, by wrapping it in (a litany of statutory)wraps of web while it sucks the life out of it. If the spider was sworn to protect and defend it's pray as well... I think you get the picture. Here is the oath with all of the obfuscational and superfluous language toward the end, to take your mind off of what is missing from the first line of the oath...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; and that I have not knowingly or intentionally paid or contributed anything, or made any promise in the nature of a bribe, to directly or indirectly influence any vote at the election at which I was chosen to fulfill the said office, and have not accepted, nor will I accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing for any vote or influence that I may give or withhold on any bill, resolution, or appropriation, or any other official act."

Nice webbing, eh?

And section 25 states that the judiciary in DC cannot be restructured or changed without an explicit act of congress.

Yes, congress, or congress at the behest of the president, may alter the courts of the District in ways consistent with the Act... which was given equal power to the Constitution by your first quote above... this gave birth to the litany of federal courts which have grown up outside the Constitutional system, where federal statutes and the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) hold sway over the Constitution. Ask Erwin Schiff who tried to cite the Constitution as the basis of law in his trial in federal court in Nevada. Schiff was told by the judge that the Constitution would not be cited in this court.

Those are just examples I picked out of the subservience to the pre-existing federal government. There's more in there. The way I understand it from reading this document the municipal corporation of DC has just enough power to wipe it's butt and not an ounce more. It certainly doesn't provide any legal grounds for overturning the constitution.

You have been beguiled by the smooth banality of the language, by the way it is constructed, and have failed to see exactly what the language is saying. By the second page it has invested the constitutional federal government with a litany of extra constitutional powers. The object from the onset was not to overturn the Constitution, instead, like a spider that disables it's pray with venom, then intertwines it in a wrapping of web, and then slowly sucks the life out of it until it is dead. This is the essence of this creeping federalization which has filtrated into every state government, and local governments as well. The object is to subvert and then supplant the Constitution, which has pretty much been done if you haven't noticed.

The organization and administration is normal and fairly obvious for something like this. You all do know that many (if not most) municipalities are also corporations? That's why you see the incorporated on the sign going into town, so the corporate status in this case is only as sinister as it is in any other case.

So what's the story about the by whom?       

Your analogy that Washington DC is some how like the municipal corporations and home rule style metropolitan city systems, is a misreading ... since the state government, nor the Federal Government are in control of these corporate cities in the direct way that the federal government is the shadow power behind a corporate United States government, that emanates from the District of Columbia, and thus is much more sinister than any incorporated city or town.

I think I have adequately described the structure, the way it is administered, and by whom... and it'll always be by the most successful group of crooks... The point is the Constitution has been reduced to almost an exoskeleton as we speak, with little life left because of this horrendous 140 year old Act.  And people are for the most part totally unaware of it, and when they do become aware of it, the banality of its language, completely obfuscates the malignancy of its intent and verbiage.

JTCoyoté

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks...They are, not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers..." ~Sen. Louis T. McFadden, 1931 (for 22 years Chaired the U.S. Banking & Currency Commission)

[VALiberaltarian]

Thanks for the response, but I still don't see it. In order to reach the conclusion that you have one would have to assume your conclusion was the sole intent of the legislation and seriously twist the meaning of the language to get there. Some of it has to be twisted into the exact opposite meaning of what it actually says.

For example your interpretation of  "and the provisions of this act....". It's very clear to me that this limits the legislative power to not only be applicable only to citizens of the district, but that all legislation must be subservient and compatiable with the US constitution and further can ONLY legislate on those issues as provisioned by this particular document. What the sentence literally says is incredibly restrictive. To get where you're going with this you have to understand it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

In my experience legal writing is sometimes difficult to understand because it is so literal, its designed to be that way. From reading this document I think that G. Edward Griffin is spot on in dismissing this line of inquiry as irrelevant.

Even though I don't agree thanks again for the discussion, your posts are always thoughtful and well written.     

[JTCoyoté]

Thanks for the response, but I still don't see it. In order to reach the conclusion that you have one would have to assume your conclusion was the sole intent of the legislation and seriously twist the meaning of the language to get there. Some of it has to be twisted into the exact opposite meaning of what it actually says.

For example your interpretation of  "and the provisions of this act....". It's very clear to me that this limits the legislative power to not only be applicable only to citizens of the district, but that all legislation must be subservient and compatiable with the US constitution and further can ONLY legislate on those issues as provisioned by this particular document. What the sentence literally says is incredibly restrictive. To get where you're going with this you have to understand it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

In my experience legal writing is sometimes difficult to understand because it is so literal, its designed to be that way. From reading this document I think that G. Edward Griffin is spot on in dismissing this line of inquiry as irrelevant.

Even though I don't agree thanks again for the discussion, your posts are always thoughtful and well written.     

Thanks you... yet be it as it may, you remain unconvinced, so I must persist.

I respect greatly the research and writings of G. Edward Griffin, but his dismissal of this pivotal piece of federal legislation seems to me a bit shallow, and requiring more investigation than he has given it. I believe it should be viewed in retrospect from the standpoint of having one foot firmly placed on trying to understand the reason for it's creation in the first place, how it could possibly be construed when looking at the original act, and then factor in the historical climate that led up to it.  While at the same time, having the other foot planted on what it has become over the last 140 years.

With this perspective it is possible to reasonably ascertain a motive for it, even in the face of it's banal legalize, so that we may better understand it's consequences whether intended or not. So, with that said, I must digress 100 years, back to the time of The Rebellion in order to provide a motive, and the most probable place to fit the DC organic act of 1871 within the grand globalist puzzle. 

It must be understood that the vast resources and wealth available within the boundaries of this country at the time of The Rebellion were largely unknown, unexplored, yet understood to be huge, virtually incalculable. The officers of power and enterprise in Britain and Europe knew this all too well in the 18th century, as did the considerable intellects in their employ. During that time, the power were engaged in Imperial dealings not only in America, but in India, Africa, and Asia as well. You must understand the view from their position in the face of finite troops spread world wide to enforce their power.  Quite contrasting, to the view of the average American, or even a powerful American of that time. And for us Americans today, what was going on within the British Empire of the 1770s is even further removed.

So, what is an 18th century tyrant to do when he is spread too thin... You tax! This is the quickest way to raise revenue, for enlistment bonuses as inducement for young men to seek military service and to purchase material with which to equip them.  But the tricky part is who best to tax? It mustn't be those close to you, those who reside within your island fortress.  They may rise up and dethrone you. No the folks close to home must be placated and be living the good life. By the same token, you cannot tax those that you don't already completely subjugate, the ones you are trying to win in Africa, and India, and Asia, that would be counterproductive if not impossible. That leaves only one place, those loyal British subjects in the Americas. And that is precisely what King George did.

Now you have to understand that with the intellectual resources King George had at his disposal, he knew the possibilities beforehand, and was thus prepared to deal with a rebellion. But by the seventh year of the war, when the French fleet joined the fray in earnest, he knew that the wear of attrition, without a decisive victory would soon deplete the Royal treasury, so a revision in plan was in order.  They dusted off and updated the old plans of siege, and from that point, the ongoing war for America would be one of long term subterfuge, small skirmishes, infiltration, and finally, subjugation even if it took 200 years. This plan had been in the works within the think tanks of King George's Court. It was already in process, long before the ink of Cornwallis' signature to the Yorktown articles of surrender was dry, the globalist subterfuge-siege against America was already underway.

I have some errands to run... I'll get back to continue this in a bit...

--Oldyoti

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of
freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment
of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison

[VALiberaltarian]

Every historical reference you just mentioned might be true, and I may tend to agree with your interpretation of a lot of it however that doesn't mean that the document that you posted even comes close to forming a legal basis for replacing the US constitutional government with a corporation.  It just doesn't say that, to be so it would have to explicitly state that and it doesn't.

When I say legalistic writing is extremely literal, I mean it. The danger is in over-interpretation which is what is going on here. Back to the sentence that you claim puts the DC charter on equal footing with the constitution, here is the original quote:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

Here is your interpretation:

"This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. "

Remember legal writing is maddeningly literal, so here's what it would have to say to support your interpretation:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistant with the Constitution of the United States OR the provisions of this act...."

A change in that single word would literally be the difference in the two meanings of the statement. "OR" would put it on equal and competing footing with the federal government. Fortunately it says "AND" and this single word reduces the legislative power of the DC municipal corporation down to just enough to admin the district's internal business.

I've listed several examples from the act that indicate that it does not turn the US into a corporation, can anyone quote specific language from the act that say's that it does?     

 

[JTCoyoté]

Every historical reference you just mentioned might be true, and I may tend to agree with your interpretation of a lot of it however that doesn't mean that the document that you posted even comes close to forming a legal basis for replacing the US constitutional government with a corporation.  It just doesn't say that, to be so it would have to explicitly state that and it doesn't.

When I say legalistic writing is extremely literal, I mean it. The danger is in over-interpretation which is what is going on here. Back to the sentence that you claim puts the DC charter on equal footing with the constitution, here is the original quote:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act...."

Here is your interpretation:

"This is not subservience... This is stating consistency with, but not strict adherence to as can be seen by the inclusion of the statement "...and provisions of this act." this places the Act and it's provisions on equal ground with the Constitution. "

Remember legal writing is maddeningly literal, so here's what it would have to say to support your interpretation:

"That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States OR the provisions of this act...."

A change in that single word would literally be the difference in the two meanings of the statement. "OR" would put it on equal and competing footing with the federal government. Fortunately it says "AND" and this single word reduces the legislative power of the DC municipal corporation down to just enough to admin the district's internal business.

I've listed several examples from the act that indicate that it does not turn the US into a corporation, can anyone quote specific language from the act that say's that it does?    

 

Nowhere have I said that the DC organic act replaces the Constitution. On the contrary, I have shown how the Act creates a private Corporation that uses the Constitution in a way that superimposes it's provisions in equal part giving legitimacy to the corporate structure. The federal government, has no power, in any case consistent with the Constitution, to CREATE, to preside by appointment, and then have "oversight and control" over, an extra-constitutional corporate power. A system that is separate from the Ratified Law as it pertains to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Constitutional government as created by that Constitution.

A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional, but by the direct involvement of the federal government in it's creation and administration... it can exercise backdoor FEDERAL POWER, using tentacles that reach into the states, cities, and county government's as well as regulating individual lives, all outside the Constitution framework. And we sit back as a myriad of federal agencies eat out our substance and trample all over the Constitution. This, for me is sufficient to raise suspicion about this document and its original intent.

I appreciate your concern over the possibility that I may not understand legalese... however during five years in the state House, I spent as many as 16 hours a day deciphering "literal," and tentacled, mandate legislation, pending in the House and the Senate here in Colorado... much of it coming down from the federal government's corporate agency think tanks. Maddeningly literal, yes... and insanely convoluted in most cases.

Suffice it to say that I know the difference between "and & or"... as well as the multiple constructions and usage of each. I even know what the meaning and usage of the word is, is...... In any case, there is more than the and/or-ness of that line in the document, after all, it is almost 12 pages. So, in addition to "literal," one must add "convolution" to the lexicon of bill proofing as well, the process of using literal language to convolve or twist phrases, to redefine terms or words for the purposes of the particular document.

Certain things will jump out at you when you first read a bill, as that particular line did for you when you first read the pages I posted. The line on page 419 of the Congressional Record that year, the one you posted is what I commented on, primarily because you posted it.  In my subsequent post I pointed out that by placing the Act's provisions on an equal footing with the Constitution in that line -- though it did not lessen the power the Constitution, it does empower the provisions of the Act.  ALL, in a document that reasserts the Constitution to empower Congress, as well as the president, over a private corporate system that in and of itself, is not unconstitutional, yet IS questionable procedure in the fact that the federal government is empowered to oversee and control it. This fact, in any normal reality would automatically snap in a person's mind, that this corporation is controlled by the federal government, extra-constitutionally... and in fact IS! ... (there is that little word "is" again)...

Here is my point in a nutshell... the federal government has certain specific powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the organic Constitution... it may hire agencies, but it has no power to create, consolidate, and control those agencies as a shadow government, in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states. They just wind it up and let it run, signing up unwitting people willy-nilly, onto this corporate "fed-gov", folks who do not realize that their signature removes their Constitutionally protected rights so that they have no Constitutional remedy when they need it! After almost a century and a half, that's a lot of people.

Likewise is the case of the Federal Reserve, and I'm sure you can think of others. Federally created and federal appointment controlled, private corporations, all. The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. The affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous.

I will continue my historical thoughts on the run-up to the great globalist takeover, the major battles of the continuing American War for Independence, in my previous post, as I find time. I'll be discussing the Amendment process...and its many misuses and abuses next.

JTCoyoté

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
 are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite." ~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

[VALiberaltarian]

OK now I can follow the reasoning in your last post. That all seems correct and I agree with most of it, however none of that specifically threatens the constitution as the supreme law of the land or invalidates the integrity of the federal government. What it does do is specify that DC has no notion of states rights, not because the act grants the municipal corporation too much power but because it grants it too little. This all is well known to residents of DC who have been complaining about this for years. 

Glad you didn't take offense over "or"/"and", I just wanted to illustrate that the difference in wording really did have an enormous effect on our understanding of this issue. I thought of famous "IS" contoversy when I wrote it too, I guess great minds think alike....

OK here's where we still differ, you state that:

"....in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states."

How does the DC municipal corporation exercise federal power throughout the states? No municipal corporation excercises any power(well not executive, legislative or judicial maybe economic) outside of it's boundaries. So how does the corporate status of DC extend to dominate all US citizens regardless of where they live? There is no mechanism for supporting that in the act, and that is the original proposition that is in dispute.

You're right about the federal reserve, that's a big government created corporation that does exert influence. No one here would dispute that. Another subject that's ripe for related conversation is "quasi governmental organizations" and their influence. So in general I agree with your viewpoint on the government backed shadow corporate power, especially this comment:

"The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. the affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous."

but don't see how the organic act has any effect on anything apart from running DC.

[JTCoyoté]

OK now I can follow the reasoning in your last post. That all seems correct and I agree with most of it, however none of that specifically threatens the constitution as the supreme law of the land or invalidates the integrity of the federal government. What it does do is specify that DC has no notion of states rights, not because the act grants the municipal corporation too much power but because it grants it too little. This all is well known to residents of DC who have been complaining about this for years.  

Glad you didn't take offense over "or"/"and", I just wanted to illustrate that the difference in wording really did have an enormous effect on our understanding of this issue. I thought of famous "IS" contoversy when I wrote it too, I guess great minds think alike....

OK here's where we still differ, you state that:

"....in the form of a municipal corporation, that exercises federal power throughout the states."

How does the DC municipal corporation exercise federal power throughout the states? No municipal corporation exercises any power(well not executive, legislative or judicial maybe economic) outside of it's boundaries. So how does the corporate status of DC extend to dominate all US citizens regardless of where they live? There is no mechanism for supporting that in the act, and that is the original proposition that is in dispute.

You're right about the federal reserve, that's a big government created corporation that does exert influence. No one here would dispute that. Another subject that's ripe for related conversation is "quasi governmental organizations" and their influence. So in general I agree with your viewpoint on the government backed shadow corporate power, especially this comment:

"The corporate federal system is running parallel, yet outside the Constitutional framework, and has been growing by agency mitosis for the last 140 years and it all began with this Act. the affect, is to render the Constitution almost superfluous."

but don't see how the organic act has any effect on anything apart from running DC.

The DC "municipal" corporation, is not bound directly to the provisions restricting the Federal government set up by the Constitution. It's governing law is set up by the 1871 DC Organic Act itself on equal footing with the Constitution, a separate entity actually with some congressional oversight.

Any Constitutional control for the DC corporation has been augmented and/or nullified in this marriage to the Act, which actually restricts, or transfers congressional control to agencies the Act itself creates. Using the provisions of the act as a "giant loophole," the corporation can extend it's reach, outside Constitutional bounds as can be seen in "federal lands" acquisition and control nation wide... the whole idea of "regional governments" and managing federal agencies are direct creations from these loopholes.

As I have said before, there is nothing within the Act that is unconstitutional, and looking along those lines, and trying to invent against it in that vein, will get one into trouble from the get go.  The fact that congress created this corporation, and to a degree oversees it is what is irregular... and as we have seen over the last century and a half, it has gradually worked to decrease congressional power while increasing the power of the executive.

Without historical context, and what amounts to a rock simple understanding of the Constitution, it goes right around and over most folks' understanding. It set a historical precedent in thew way that it works. It opened huge loopholes, which allowed for the creation of everything from the USDA Forest Service and Federal Reserve, to the National Security Agency. It created the first extra-constitutional Federal district of control, and there will be nine more,  "...so that we can bring government closer to the people." Wrong kind of government to be sure.

This act has more to do with setting precedents and broad loopholes than it does with any unconstitutional shenanigans within the actual structure of the Act.  And in retrospect, it has served their purpose quite well since most folks still cannot see its significance.  With all of the private corporate structured systems that this precedent has allowed which are servicing the federal government, even to the extent that the President is seen as the CEO, and the cabinet has grown to what amounts to a board of directors, operating under the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Constitution is seen as, "...just a godam*ed piece of paper"... well there in-lies the tale.

JTCoyoté

"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act
[of 1864] was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built
up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country."
~Solomon P. Chase
On his role in the creation of the usary banking system

[VALiberaltarian]

JT, We be on same page now!

[adissenter2]

When you realize we haven't had "THE REAL Constitution of the United States of America" as our law for almost 140 years... AND you FINALLY understand that the system that is operating every aspect of what now is considered "our" federal government is actually a foreign power, with the corporate name United States Inc... incorporated on February 21, 1871 in the City of Washington, District of Columbia... that operates outside of our true law... then you will see how much of a fools errand you are truly on, by going after the REAL Constitution instead of the imposter... Which your effort could never touch! since they are outside our law.

agreed

I want remedy!  I want out of this Revived Roman Empire! "Come out of her My people!"

going beyond just exposing the 'US inc'

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=394.0