Canada, non-Inc.

[Bill Lumbergh]

just for clarification the "countries are corporations" arguments are not only freemen arguments. they are basic opca arguments. and they stretch almost universally throught the opca universe. and for the purpose of this thread i dont think getting out of paying a loan, tax, a ticket or anything else really matters at all. people like wup and myself have many friends with this belief and many opca folks believe the corporate government thing in general. all we are asking is how we explain how federal, provincial/state governments are not corporations in a business sense of the word. through that knowledge we can then cease that proposition and stop it.

I think the starting point is to have the believers explain what proof they have that governments are corporations in the business sense of the word. Not just characteristics that they may share with corporations, but hard evidence that a country is a corporation in the same as Pepsico. I have yet to see any evidence like this, other than vague references to "discoveries" and "research" that the believers somehow never want to share.

[morrand]

just for clarification the "countries are corporations" arguments are not only freemen arguments. they are basic opca arguments. and they stretch almost universally throught the opca universe. and for the purpose of this thread i dont think getting out of paying a loan, tax, a ticket or anything else really matters at all. people like wup and myself have many friends with this belief and many opca folks believe the corporate government thing in general. all we are asking is how we explain how federal, provincial/state governments are not corporations in a business sense of the word. through that knowledge we can then cease that proposition and stop it.

I think the starting point is to have the believers explain what proof they have that governments are corporations in the business sense of the word. Not just characteristics that they may share with corporations, but hard evidence that a country is a corporation in the same as Pepsico. I have yet to see any evidence like this, other than vague research to "discoveries" and "research" that the believers somehow never want to share.

Agreed. One of the fundamental problems with any of this is that it's often built on assuming the conclusion: that all laws are contracts (and therefore optional, though actually that doesn't follow). If you analyze the problem that way, in effect you're working backward from the conclusion to find supports for it. That, of course, doesn't work; you can very often find points that will support the conclusion, even if they can't support themselves. So we get someone discovering that Canada has an SEC registration, like many businesses, and that gets tagged as evidence for the conclusion they've already drawn. This also, I think, leads directly to the, "Canada's a corporation; prove it isn't!" line of argument. Very hard to counter that effectively, because the logic is so snarled up.

The only help I can directly offer is that pretty much all business corporations have rights and duties that are defined under some law or another. These laws are passed by the various governments, of course; but, if those governments are themselves corporations, and subject to those laws, then how can they have the power to pass the laws that give themselves existence? I'm not sure that posing a paradox like this goes far toward correcting anyone's viewpoint, but if it gets their logic turned around to face the right way, it's a start.

Ninj is entirely correct on this: The premise that countries are business corporations is a fundamental tenet of OPCA generally. The natural next step from there is to conclude that, therefore, the laws those countries pass are contracts (or offers to contract), and from there you get to all those florid expressions of OPCA and freeman theory. Being foundational, I'm not optimistic that it can be knocked down so easily (it's bearing the load of a lot of the superstructure), but it's worth the try.

[arayder]

So basically we are left to explain to bunch of freemen, freemen-lites, opca believers and I-flunked-civics morons that lightening and lightening bugs are different things.

I have to apologize at this point for insulting morons. . . .

. . .and anybody who has listened with slacked jaw amazement while pretend smarties like Robert Menard claim that they don't have to pay for what they take, drive with a license or obey the law anymore than they have to follow Walmart employee policies knows that getting out from under the law is what it's about for the crowd that has no problem riding in the wagon they never push.

[notorial dissent]

So basically we are left to explain to bunch of freemen,freemen-lites and opca believers and I-flunked-civics morons that lightening and lightening bugs are different things.

I have to apologize at this point for insulting morons. . . .

Pretty much, when you have someone who believes a person is a corporation because their names are spelled in caps, when oddly enough, there is no legal requirement for corporations to do so or be so described. And, I've never yet gotten one of them to show me any portion or section of law requiring or even stating this. Is it any wonder that the next step is even further out of their grasp.

After all this and we are essentially back to where we started. No one is arguing that govt's are not bodies corporeal and politic, they always have been, they ARE JUST NOT common BUSINESS CORPORATIONS. They were not/are not created to transact business, although they can, they were/are created to govern.

[bmxninja357]

again, this has nothing to do with all caps names, laws not applying or anyone's opinion on opca folks beyond trying to get to source material so those of us who don't just bitch but wish to dispel certain myths amongst the opca community and others with this false belief can actually look, read, confirm and understand that government is not a corporation in the sense that toyota is a corporation.

so if you actually can present court cases, foundation documents, a government explanation or some such that is confirmable and preferably linkable it would be appreciated. we have all heard the redundant blah blah i hate freeman blah blah freeloaders blah blah laws apply whether you like it or not. it really dosent help as much as a few decent links would. in fact it probably does the opposite. some of us wish to dispel the myths not just whine ad naseum about those who parrot them.

so some actual resources would be appreciated. and i appreciate the explanations that have been given. i just know that without back up sources words are relatively meaningless to the crowd we are trying to get through to.

thank you to those who help and who have helped.
peace,
ninj

[Jeffrey]

"The United States has been referred to as a corporation only in instances where the exercise of the sovereign power involved functions peculiar to corporations, as that term is used in its ordinary sense."

https://casetext.com/case/mcnichols-v-denver-2

"The reasons for the latter change [substituting `partnerships and corporations' for `bodies politic and corporate'] are that partnerships ought to be included; and that if the phrase `bodies politic' is precisely equivalent to `corporations,' it is redundant; but if, on the contrary, `body politic' is somewhat broader, and should be understood to include a government, such as a State, while `corporation' should be confined to an association of natural persons on whom government has conferred continuous succession, then the provision goes further than is convenient. It requires the draughtsman, in the majority of cases of employing the word `person,' to take care that States, Territories, foreign governments, c., appear to be excluded." 1 Revision of the United States Statutes as Drafted 19 (1872).

https://casetext.com/case/ngiraingas-v-sanchez-2

In many of Neal's filings, Neal disputed the court's jurisdiction, asserting the “United States [was] a corporation.” The court denied most of Neal's motions as frivolous and nonsensical.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-neal-31

It is fundamental that the United States exists as a sovereign of delegated powers; delegated to it by the sovereigns making up the United States, the individual states. While there may be isolated cases which hold that the different states, and even the United States, are "bodies politic and corporate", they do not hold that the United States is a corporation existing by the laws of the United States.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states ... orporation

This next one is interesting because it's a court refusing to answer whether or not the United States is a corporation:

"Federal courts are not comprised of philosopher-kings or legislative aides, and the Constitution forbids us from pontificating about abstractions in the law or merely giving advice about the potential legal deficiencies of a law or policy when no ongoing controversy exists with respect to that law or policy." Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 289

https://casetext.com/case/wagner-v-us-16

[Wake Up! Productions]

Perhaps this has already been debunked prior to my arrival here on Q. If so, can someone point me the appropriate topic.

The purported Edward Mandell House quote:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”

Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

This is quote is supposedly from "the minutes of a meeting in the White House that included President Woodrow Wilson", and was reportedly discovered in the archives of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. Many years ago I spent a good 5 hours searching the online archives* http://www.woodrowwilson.org/ but I could not find any official mention of this quote.

*The archives are not currently available: "Our new digital library site is under development."

[arayder]

Perhaps this has already been debunked prior to my arrival here on Q. If so, can someone point me the appropriate topic.

The purported Edward Mandell House quote:

. . .if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. . .

This is quote is supposedly from "the minutes of a meeting in the White House that included President Woodrow Wilson", and was reportedly discovered in the archives of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. Many years ago I spent a good 5 hours searching the online archives* http://www.woodrowwilson.org/ but I could not find any official mention of this quote.

*The archives are not currently available: "Our new digital library site is under development."

This conspiracy theory is an insult to the reader's intelligence.

Adding to the fact that nobody seems to be able to find the original document one should note that the term "plausible deniability" was not in use until the 1950's when CIA staff coined the term. Some credit the term's first use to be as late as the 1960's.

One might as well float the idea that there a letter from William Shakespeare to Francis Bacon in which Shakespeare admits that Bacon wrote all of the the plays attributed to the former. In the text of the letter Shakespeare tells Bacon, "Your plays are awesome, dude!"

This conspiracy theory would have us believe that House sat in a meeting and spat out a grammatically perfect prediction of the social security system which didn't begin until the 1930's, nearly 20 years later.

[wserra]

so some actual resources would be appreciated.

Y'know, it's occurred to me that I need "actual resources" to prove that a dog really isn't a Buick. After all, both rest on the ground at four points; both are powered by internal oxidation; both need to ingest sources of energy; neither can speak, but both make noises that appear to be understood by others of their kind.

Now, I've looked and looked, but can't seem to find anything that proves that a dog isn't a Buick. With all the courts we have, I assumed that at least one would have addressed the issue, but none has.

A government isn't a corporation for the same reason for the same reason a dog isn't a Buick.

words are relatively meaningless to the crowd we are trying to get through to.

Since explanations require words, I'd say that trying to explain something to a crowd that regards words (at least words with which they don't agree) as meaningless is pretty much an exercise in futility.

Sounds to me like someone needs to pick a law dictionary.

I will say though, you are a master at putting words in other people's mouths. In my opinion, that is the true sign of a weak opponent !!!

I would answer that, but an accurate answer would result in Burnaby deleting my post.

[Hyrion]

this has nothing to do with not paying bills, freemen, believing laws dont apply, or thinking all court proceedings are commercial

I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. And if you wish to confirm that, ask your friend(s) why they want to believe the government is nothing but a corporation. What is the end goal? What purpose does it serve to discuss that?

If they're speaking philosophically then they'll be open to discussing the differences between what a Government is and what a Corporation is - not just the similarites.

But if they're focused on a specific end goal - like not having to pay vehicle insurance - then your claim that the belief pertaining to Governments being Corporations has nothing to do with paying bills or not applying laws is quite mistaken.

You might want to start by finding out what the end-goal for the person pitching the "Governments Are Corporations" is. Find out what the conclusion they want to share with you is. Knowing that - you can then speak directly to the conclusion rather than "beating around the bush".

[Hyrion]

To take my point further with regards finding out the conclusion/result they are aiming for:

for example i always believed, as i said countries were incorporated just for the purpose of doing business. not to get out of tax,a loan, or a belief the law didnt apply because of it. i was still wrong and im glad i was shown the reality of it.

So you believed "countries were incorporated just for the purpose of doing business".

Ok.... in and of itself that isn't a totally accurate description of what a Country is, but so what? What conclusion did you end up drawing from that which could have directed you down a path that was harmful to you in reality? What was the end-goal, the results you concluded from that?

I'd conclude that my Country being incorporated just for the purpose of doing business means I can trust it to honor it's business agreements with my company. The fact the Country also makes Laws and my company can not make Laws has nothing to do with the incorporation of the Country - it has to do with the "other hat" the Country wears.

So I ask again: you mentioned you were glad you were shown the reality of it - but you haven't identified in the slightest where you went off-target with reality. In other words: what conclusion did you draw from "a Country is incorporated just for the purpose of doing business" which would have lead to a negative situation from you had it not been corrected?

[JamesVincent]

Hyrion, I think whoever said that they were looking for a way to support their conclusion after they make it was dead on. Almost all of their delusions require that to be true, if it wasn't true then nothing they spout out would make sense. The whole canceling the social contract, birth certificate are trusts or bonds, etc.

Ninja, I applaud your wanting to help people out of the trap you fell into but it won't work for a couple of reasons. 1, they have to want to see the truth and most of them only want to see what they want. There is tons of caselaw and logical reasons for someone to not believe it but they still believe it anyway. There are hundreds of websites out there trying to make a mountain out of a molehill using the 1871 act (and the funny part is your Canadian buds are making an argument based on a US law....again.) Secondly, you admitted that the people you are trying to help don't believe in words. Well, everything you try to do is going to require words, even them arguing against you requires words. I don't know how you're make a case without using words, maybe you should make a graphic novel based on facts or make them watch Schoolhouse Rock.

[JamesVincent]

I would answer that, but an accurate answer would result in Burnaby deleting my post.

Wes winz the interwebs today.

[notorial dissent]

Most if not all of it falls back to the sovrunidjit fantasy that everything is contracts and business, and it isn't, just like the UCC is universal.

[JamesVincent]

Just to be helpful I have prepared some memes that seem appropriate for this discussion.

[JamesVincent]

Hope that helps.

[ontobserver]

Perhaps this has already been debunked prior to my arrival here on Q. If so, can someone point me the appropriate topic.

The purported Edward Mandell House quote:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.

...

This is quote is supposedly from "the minutes of a meeting in the White House that included President Woodrow Wilson", and was reportedly discovered in the archives of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. Many years ago I spent a good 5 hours searching the online archives* http://www.woodrowwilson.org/ but I could not find any official mention of this quote.

*The archives are not currently available: "Our new digital library site is under development."

The OPCA community (and likewise the whole conspiracy theory crowd) use these types of quotations all the time, and play an obvious trick to get people to believe them. Instead of providing evidence the the quotations is accurate, they insist that unless someone can prove otherwise, the statement must be accurate.

This form of logic is broken...while if the statement in question was valid, it should be straightforward to provide the evidence including all of the relevant information (date, attendees, title of publication, page number, photocopy, etc.), it is almost impossible to prove the negative.

In order to prove that the statement was never made, you would need transcripts of every possible meeting in which President Wilson could have made the statement. And to prove that that you had all such transcripts, you would need to have a minute-by-minute account of President Wilson's location to ensure that there wasn't a meeting for which you didn't have a transcript. And after all that, you would have to prove that there wasn't any possibility that the quoted reference simply wasn't transcribed.

Another example...if I said that at some time in the past I lent you $5000.00 and wanted you to repay me, how could you prove I didn't lend you the money? You wouldn't be able to produce a piece of paper that says I didn't lend you the money. You could attempt to prove that we have never met and therefore I couldn't have lent you the money, but to do that you would need to account for your and my whereabouts with fine enough resolution to ensure we in fact didn't meet. Alternatively, you could account for every penny you have received and spent, and then prove you haven't hidden the $5000.00 in tin can buried beside some tree...

Fortunately, if I said that I had lent you $5000.00 and took you to court to recover the money, the onus would be on me to prove that I lent the money to you in the first place.

In many cases, you simply can't prove that something didn't happen.

[Wake Up! Productions]

This conspiracy theory is an insult to the reader's intelligence.

Adding to the fact that nobody seems to be able to find the original document one should note that the term "plausible deniability" was not in use until the 1950's when CIA staff coined the term. Some credit the term's first use to be as late as the 1960's.

One might as well float the idea that there a letter from William Shakespeare to Francis Bacon in which Shakespeare admits that Bacon wrote all of the the plays attributed to the former. In the text of the letter Shakespeare tells Bacon, "Your plays are awesome, dude!"

This conspiracy theory would have us believe that House sat in a meeting and spat out a grammatically perfect prediction of the social security system which didn't begin until the 1930's, nearly 20 years later.

Thank you - that's all I was seeking, a rational opinion. This quote is frequently used to as proof positive that America is a corporation, yet this supposed "proof" can not be verified. I didn't know about the "plausible deniability" thing until today, so, anytime I can learn something new, I consider it to be a good day !!!

[Burnaby49]

I would answer that, but an accurate answer would result in Burnaby deleting my post.

Wes winz the interwebs today.

I decide to do a little light housekeeping, just tidying up, and so I've culled a few superfluous posts now and then. Next thing you know I have a reputation entirely at odds with my level-headed, judicious, cautious style of moderating.

This just isn't fair. I treat all posters fairly and respectfully. Just ask Joinder, or Yiamcross, or Wake Up! Productions, or Arayder, or ninja, or . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never mind.

[Hyrion]

it is almost impossible to prove the negative
...
In many cases, you simply can't prove that something didn't happen.

In an attempt to help cover the concept being expressed:

• Prove unicorns do not exist

The best one can hope for is to prove that a unicorn ( one horned magical horse ) is not present and therefore likely does not exist. But in order to prove such does not actually exist - one would have to cover not only this Universe but every other possible universe as well.

But - if someone claimed they had a unicorn - then it's very easily within their power/ability to prove it .... unless, of course, they were lieing in the first place.

It is not only on that fallacy of "I've made a claim, now you prove it's not true" that the current context is built - but the claim is also one of such breadth that the answers are unacceptable becaue they don't define the whole.

Asking why a Government is not a Corporation - then claiming that answers like "A government can make criminal laws, a corporation can not" is insufficient makes it clear that either:

• A: The discussion is pointless - the person asking the question doesn't really want or care about an answer - s/he's simply stimulating discussion by claiming controversy

• B: The person really does want an answer - but they either can't or won't identify what they actually want an answer to - or they want a specific answer and don't want to accept other answers

One might as well ask people to prove that quantum mechanics isn't math - then claim that any answer provided is not good enough.

That's exactly why I asked bmxninja357 to narrow the context of what he really wants an answer to - although not in those specific words. Without narrowing - those of us trying to provide an answer are shooting in the dark with a nano-sized gun while trying to hit a moving nano-sized target.

So - someone makes a claim the Government is a Corporation, prove it's not: why? Narrow the question so it's easier to identify the correct answer. After all - the whole key to solving any problem is in asking the right question. And obviously, the question that's been asked is not narrow enough in context/definition to acquire an acceptable answer.

Meanwhile, WUP decides to go off-topic from the perspective of the core question and ask about an alleged quote covering what appears to be the context of the Government aiming for economic enslavement of the people.

My ownly answer to that is:

The definition of the master-slave relationship is the total authority of one human over another. The master has the authority to decide what rights - if any - the slave is entitled to. The master has the authority to decide what protections of law - if any - the slave is entitled to. The master can do anything s/he wants to the slave including the worst acts of torture anyone can dream up followed by murder for no other reason then entertainment.

As a result, economic enslavement is one perspon/entity with total financial authority over another. Can a person decide whether or not they will take on the debt of a credit card? If the answer is yes, then economic enslavement in the form of credit cards simply does not exist. That is true with all forms of economics.

To answer any further - such as to speak to the direct opinion of OPCA with regards "we the people are economic slaves to taxes" - too easily crosses the lines of political and philosophical discussion which are reasonably "outlawed" here.