Thursday, April 19, 2012

Another Supreme Court Decision Proving the US is a Corporation First and Foremost.

What is the duty of It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers.According to the US Supreme Court, a corporation is a person when it wants to buy an election - Citizens United ruling - but when it wants to torture and murder people - unanimous ruling on Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority - it's not a person; therefore, cannot be held accountable.

The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a law on the books since 1991 precludes organizations, both political and corporate, from being sued for torture or murder outside of the U.S.

In a unanimous ruling on Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (PDF), Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the careful text of the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991, the way it is written "convinces us that Congress did not extend liability to organizations, sovereign or not."
Do you need any more proof that the United States is, indeed, a corporation? Because it most certainly is. Not only that, despite what you were taught in school about the Revolutionary War, that we won our independence from the Brits, the United States is still, and always has been subject to the British Crown. 

Keep in mind, the use of "Esquire" which declares anyone who uses that title, British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

The first Charter of Virginia in 1606

Using his money and resources, King James I sent his subjects to America with the expectation of gain from his commercial venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and declared the amount of gold, silver and copper he was to receive. Moreover, the king declared the right to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony.

Treaty of Paris 1783

This treaty contradicts what we've been taught about the Revolutionary war. We did not win our total independence. Ben Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams - all Esquires - merely negotiated further granted privileges from the King of England. Quite a few, in fact, except one: his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain (see Virginia Charter, 1606) for his commercial venture.

So, why is the King granting us privileges if we won the war? Why  was the King dictating the terms for surrender if we won the war? To this very day, the US is still paying millions of dollars per day to the Crown. Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

Financial servitude

Every taxpayer has an Individual Master File (IMF). Document 6209, about 467 pages, is used to decode the computer codes on the IMF records. If you retrieve your IMF, you will find that you are being held liable for a tax payable to the Crown.

Act of 1871 "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia."

The 41st Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.  This Act created a new constitution for the District of Columbia, the corporation.

Here, you will find much more information on the purpose of the War of 1812, the forgotten amendment (#13), 

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security (S.I. 1997 No:1778 The Social Security. A 1040 form is for tribute (tax - A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677) paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209).

Read this section from Title 26  (at this link, you will find lots more info on this subject) you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE- 26 USC Sec. 1491
HEAD- Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of -

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of -

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.


(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)



1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.

1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.

(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar.


Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after

October 2, 1975.'


Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.'


wedding dress 05:04  

thanks for your share, it's very useful

Petitions by|Start a Petition »

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP