"Corporate" US

[wserra]

What's a juristic person?

You mean, like, one of the characters from the movie about the dinosaurs?

Nah. He's talking about da Joors.

[notorial dissent]

Ignorance, coupled with poor to non-existent reading skills, allied with the inability or refusal to accept that words can have more than one meaning or mean something in one sense and not another will certainly go a long ways towards getting you there.

[Pottapaug1938]

What's a juristic person?

Why do you ask?

[notorial dissent]

What's a juristic person?

I have a novel suggestion for you. It's called do some real research. There are lots of these new fangled things called dictionaries available all over the internet. Give it a shot. I'm sure it won't be too big a strain for someone of your claimed intellect. In fact, here is one for you to start with real dictionary

[GMac]

Which is why sovcits want to think of governments as corporations, because they want to undermine and de-legitimize the power of governments to punish the violations of laws.

I was thinking about this, and I can't help but wonder if it's also partially a misreading of private corporations vs. municipal corporations; i.e. an intentional confusion of the term "corporation". But they don't seem to get all bent out of shape at local or state incorporation, so I'm probably wrong on that.

[GMac]

Freemen and sovcits want to believe they can escape the certainty of the law by ending their supposed contractual relationship with the government the same way they fire the bug man.

In the end they are wrong in their assumption that all relationships are contractual.

This actually explains a lot, from my perspective - all the fretting about contracts, the yelling "I do not consent!" when arrested, the attempts to negate names. Possibly their insistence on Admiralty law and that people=vessels, as well, though that still makes me all "WTF?".

[GMac]

What's a juristic person?

Um, no. No.

If you want to play your stupid games, start your own soon-to-be-locked thread. Don't come leech off my discussion like a damn brain-sucking parasite.

Or to put it another way: REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Maybe THAT you'll understand.

[arayder]

Freemen and sovcits want to believe they can escape the certainty of the law by ending their supposed contractual relationship with the government the same way they fire the bug man.

In the end they are wrong in their assumption that all relationships are contractual.

This actually explains a lot, from my perspective - all the fretting about contracts, the yelling "I do not consent!" when arrested, the attempts to negate names. Possibly their insistence on Admiralty law and that people=vessels, as well, though that still makes me all "WTF?".

When pressed on the issue sovcits simply deny the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and wrongly insist that all law is contract law.

No amount of discussion, no recounting of debunkings or references to case law that refutes them will convince brainwashed sovcits.

The answer to "WTF?" isn't in the law, but rather in psychology.

[GlimDropper]

As mentioned before you can't really pin down "sovereign thinking," it's like trying to nail jello to a tree. But as I understand it the core of the "all law is contract" argument stems from a preposterous misreading of Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. In a brief enumeration of the powers of congress (the federal government) we find:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

Now 99+% of the English speaking world would read that to mean that the federal government has exclusive legislative authority over the nation's capitol, military bases and similar "needful buildings" on land ceded to it by the states. Not our sovereigns, they read it the other way around, that the federal government's lawful authority is exclusive TO those areas. So how do they get away with sticking their noses into the lives of liberty minded constitutional scholars outside the "federal zone"? Contracts, sneaky hidden adhesion contracts you never even agreed to in the first place or were tricked into signing without your knowledge.

[Dr. Caligari]

I was thinking about this, and I can't help but wonder if it's also partially a misreading of private corporations vs. municipal corporations; i.e. an intentional confusion of the term "corporation". But they don't seem to get all bent out of shape at local or state incorporation, so I'm probably wrong on that.

For-profit business corporations were a relatively late development in Anglo-American law; they were not common before the 19th Century. Prior to that, the term "corporation" typically referred to a governmental entity or a non-profit organization. I recall reading once (though I can't confirm) that the first corporations recognized under English law were Oxford University and the City of London.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Jeff Goldbloom, wasn't it?

Yes. Being Jewish and in the cast of Jurassic Park he was doubly qualified.

[JamesVincent]

Jeff Goldbloom, wasn't it?

Yes. Being Jewish and in the cast of Jurassic Park he was doubly qualified.

Something I always thought was interesting about Jeff Goldblum was that, even though he was best known for things like Jurassic Park or Independence Day, one of his first big roles was as one of the pair that raped Charles Bronson's wife and daughter in the original Death Wish.

[Famspear]

My earliest memory of Jeff Goldblum is his brief appearance in Woody Allen's Annie Hall (1977), and the line he delivered:

I forgot my mantra.

[erwalkerca]

Tenspeed and Brownshoe, with Ben Vereen. Lasted 14 episodes I believe.

[Burnaby49]

What's a juristic person?

Um, no. No.

If you want to play your stupid games, start your own soon-to-be-locked thread. Don't come leech off my discussion like a damn brain-sucking parasite.

Or to put it another way: REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Maybe THAT you'll understand.

I had the same issue when that idiot tried to barge in on one of my discussions with a comment totally unrelated to the issues under consideration. So I asked readers not to rise to the bait. If every time he brought up another totally moronic discussion everybody just ignored it, and ignored his attempts to hijack existing discussions, he'd be gone in short order. Peolple are just feeding his ego by responding.

You framed the issue and response better than I did.

[arayder]

Jeff Goldbloom, wasn't it?

Yes. Being Jewish and in the cast of Jurassic Park he was doubly qualified.

Something I always thought was interesting about Jeff Goldblum was that, even though he was best known for things like Jurassic Park or Independence Day, one of his first big roles was as one of the pair that raped Charles Bronson's wife and daughter in the original Death Wish.

He also played a duplicitous eastern dude in Silverado. And was the guy who became the fly in The Fly, which scared the pants off me.

[Dr. Caligari]

What's a juristic person?

Yo' momma.

[Prof]

I was thinking about this, and I can't help but wonder if it's also partially a misreading of private corporations vs. municipal corporations; i.e. an intentional confusion of the term "corporation". But they don't seem to get all bent out of shape at local or state incorporation, so I'm probably wrong on that.

For-profit business corporations were a relatively late development in Anglo-American law; they were not common before the 19th Century. Prior to that, the term "corporation" typically referred to a governmental entity or a non-profit organization. I recall reading once (though I can't confirm) that the first corporations recognized under English law were Oxford University and the City of London.

As far as I know, the first charter issued to a significant, for profit, business entity in the English world was the charter issued to the Muscovy Company in 1555. Corporate charters were held by the proprietary colonies (SC, NC, etc.) in America, by the East and West India Companies, etc. Before that, charters corporate were issued to entities which needed to live for ever, like municipalities and universities. But, there were certainly for profit entities, like the colonies, trading firms, etc.

Prior to business corporations, towns received royal, corporate charters.

For profit corporate entities have a fairly long history, in English law. However, only in the late 1700's or very early 1800's were a few "general" corporate charters issue, allowing a "general business purposes." Almost all charters were special acts of legislative bodies. Finally, in the late 1800's, New Jersey enacted a statute allowing a general purpose incorporation ("to carry on any legitimate line of business" or some such). For a time, New Jersey was the corporate home of choice. Delaware, with even more open-ended statutes, surpassed N.J.

Incidentally, the anti-trust acts were designed to control large entities called trusts, naturally, which held the stock of related, separately incorporated entities in trust for purposes of common control. Standard Oil (Rockefeller) controlled the stock of 33 smaller, incorporated companies, across state lines and for purposes of vertical and horizontal integration.

Corporate entities, whether municipalities or business entities, are creatures of the "crown" (or the state or State or other governmental entity) which creates the laws which allow these entities to form, exist, breath, breed, and live for ever. Cambridge U., Oxford U. and Harvard U are examples of very old, still living and breathing, corporate entities, as is the City of London. See also NYC, etc.

Hope this helps.

[notorial dissent]

The usual usage found in a lot of the really old charters was a grant making them a body --- corporate or corporeal --- and politic, which meant that it, the corporation, had a legal existence, presence, and standing both in society and more importantly AT LAW as opposed to just a group of individuals doing something who would have been jointly and severally liable for any of its acts. Those corporations were juristic persons, and so could also, and did, bear arms registered with the crown. Cities were probably the first real benefactors of this innovation, followed by the guilds, who were essentially non-profit trade associations or groups or schools of a kind in our modern parlance. They were granted special privileges and powers by those charters not extended to other subjects.

[davids]

One of the ways, that I am aware of, that sovcits/moors/other legal charlatans get to the conclusion that the U.S. is "only" a corporation is by willfully misreading federal statutes.

One of them confronted me once online, with a statute that listed, separately, all of the different things that were defined as "the United States of America" and those included as one of many different possibilities, federal government corporations. One would have had to have been blind as a bat to read that statute (I can't remember which one) and come to the conclusion that it read that the U.S. is "only" a corporation, but that is the way that particular numb nuts read it.