Being blessed by the Creator with unalienable rights, the NASOC (U3143) is comprised by those who have protection of the Constitutional law and principles of the de jure state republic; instead of the non-constitutional statutes and the policies of the CORPORATE STATE DEMOCRACY. To achieve such status, one needs to understand the fundamental difference between the two entities.
De jure "Constitutional"
De facto a "CORPORATE SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITY".
* The term non-constitutional? is legally defined as being based on
theory / principle other than the Constitution.
* Not knowing this, most Americans mistakenly refer to statutes and policies enacted by the CORPORATE STATE government as being unconstitutional, when in fact such applicable only to the non-constitutional corporate democracy and are properly enforced under the jurisdiction of non-constitutional administrative courts.
* By operation of law? your living estate, i.e. all tangible and intangible property, is present subject to the jurisdiction of the non-constitutional administrative courts, wherein you can be imprisoned to prevent the commission of crimes "USC Title 4 Section 112", by your property!
* The proper judicial procedure to correct the above operation of law? is now available and provides for the orderly transition from the non-constitutional de facto CORPORATE STATE to the Constitutional republic form of government.
All things are made in the image of their creator.
Government is a corporation. Government creates corporations. Corporations emulate government.
LAW DICTIONARY by John Bouvier:
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION CORPORATION
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965:
The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society which makes it a person. A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) 2 U.S. 419 (Dall.) Chisholm, Ex'r. v.
February Term, 1793
The word "corporations," in its largest sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be restricted or transcendent, is in this sense "a corporation." The King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation . . .. So also, by a very respectable author ... is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not only each State singly, but even the United States may without impropriety be termed "corporations."
"But still it may be insisted, that this will reduce States to mere corporations, and take away all sovereignty. [See Clearfield Doctrine] As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of powers." - Justice Cushing [And those powers extend ONLY to those "persons" within the corporate structure.]
According to Federal law itself, the "United States" is, by deﬁnition, a "Federal corporation." See 28 USC 3002 (15)(A).
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation; What does the applicable case law say about this?
" . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government." --Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie RR Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearﬁeld Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
Note: The Clearﬁeld Doctrine is stare decisis upon all courts, and imposes that
"an entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules unless it, like any other corporation, is the Holder in Due Course of some contract or commercial agreement between it, and the one on whom its demands for performance are made, and is willing to produce said document, and to place the same into evidence before trying to enforce its demands."
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
This doctrine is well settled:
"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private ﬁrm or corporation." U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.
United States of America is a Delaware Corporation and that is all it is; no more "dual character;" no more sovereign powers.
The USA Inc. -- File Number 4525682 USA Inc. -- File Number 2193946
======== U.S. Supreme Court
VILAS v. CITY OF MANILA, 220 U.S. 345 (1911)
". . . We are unable to agree with the argument. It loses sight of the dual character of municipal corporations. They exercise powers which are governmental and powers which are of a private or business character. In the one character a municipal corporation is a governmental subdivision, and for that purpose exercises by delegation a part of the sovereignty of the state. In the other character it is a mere legal entity or juristic person. In the latter character it stands for the community in the administration of local affairs wholly beyond the sphere of the public purposes for which its governmental powers are conferred."
"The distinction is observed in South Carolina v. United States, HYPERLINK "http:// us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=199&invol=437" \l "461"199 U.S. 437, 461 , 50 S. L. ed. 261, 269, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 737, where Lloyd v. New York, 5 N. Y. 369, 374, 55 Am. Dec. 347, and Western Sav. Fund Soc. v. Philadelphia, 31 Pa. 175, 72 Am. Dec. 730, are cited and approved. In Lloyd v. New York, supra, it is said:
'The corporation of the city of New York possesses two kinds of powers: one governmental and public, and to the extent they are held and exercised, is clothed with sovereignty; the other private, and to the extent they are held and exercised, is a legal individual. The former are given and used for public purposes, the latter for private purposes. While in the exercise of the former, the corporation is a municipal government; and while in the exercise of the latter, is a corporate legal individual.'"
See also Dill. Mun. Corp. 4th ed. 66; Petersburg v. Applegarth, 28 Gratt. 321, 343, 26 Am. Rep. 357, and Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489, 3 Am. Rep. 485.
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)
"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made." "The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the grant or charter
of the separate states;" --U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
"In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited; but while within those limits, it is as perfect a government as any other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109."