The Law of Contracts: Government Agencies Existing as Corporations

The Law of Contracts: Government Agencies Existing as Corporations

 

While researching the incorporation of the federal government in 1871 I discovered that not only had the government been made over into a ruling corporation, but through extension so had multiple government agencies.  This came about over the years since the original coup of 1871 and has been incrementally extended to almost all government agencies and departments.

 

What does this mean to you?

 

It means that agencies such as, the Department of Agriculture for example, is a fully accredited corporation operating independent of the federal government with few exceptions.  Although the creation of this corporation came with certain caveats that allowed the fed to minimally instruct or legislate its activity, the DoA is no different than any other privately held corporation and subject to nothing except the law of contracts, administered by administrative “judges” who pin their decisions not on the common law of the United States, but rather, on the system of codes and statutes known as the Uniform Commercial Code.  The UCC is simply the US version of British Maritime Law.

 

This means that when dealing with this corporation (or any of the other hundreds of sub-corporations owned by THE UNITED STATES), especially in litigation, any correspondence from them will have your name fully capitalized as notice to you that you are a corporate trust with no human implication, and therefore not subject to common law.  Your interaction with this agency will be subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, and you have no right to use the constitution to defend yourself. 

 

So who owns the Department of Agriculture and other government agencies/corporations?

 

The DoA like many other corporately held agencies is owned by the parent corporation:

THE UNITED STATES (a corporation) a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Because it is incorporated, THE UNITED STATES is governed by the law of contracts and not the constitution of the United States (the common law applied to citizens of the collective and formerly sovereign states before 1871)

 

This simple piece of knowledge explains why “agreements” (not treaties) are entered into which put the rights of the corporation above those of human beings. CAFTA is an ideal example here.  CAFTA explicitly puts the rights of the corporate interests above those of humanity, and profits, above any human right.  Any law currently on the books or under consideration for passage can be struck down immediately using the “trade illegal” provisions of CAFTA.  Any law which in the eyes of the corporate interest precludes them from making all the profits they believe they are entitled to, is deemed “trade illegal” and can be legally challenged, again using the UCC.

 

As a corporation, THE UNITED STATES has no obligation to abide by the constitutional provisions and requirements necessary to pass a treaty under the constitution or subject to common laws provided in it.  These provisions, if adhered to, make treaties the supreme law of the land.  This means that each and every state, after having thoroughly vetted and voted on the passage of the treaty is required to abide by its requirements.  No exceptions.  A corporate agreement is not subject to any of these provisions as it is ruled by administrative code and statute and not by common law. 

 

Because the trade agreements are not legal treaties, compliance cannot be forced upon the states….but none of your representatives or senators will tell you that.

 

“Agreements” are simply corporate agreements between the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES, and other corporate entities from other nations, all of them operating as governmental authorities.  

 

In the last few years, court decisions rendered in courtrooms in which administrative law is being administered, (meaning statutes and codes, and not the common law) decisions such as the one by “Judge” Barbadoro in New Hampshire.  In April of 2007 he handed down a decision that said,  “corporations, as legal persons, have “free speech rights” that would be infringed”. 

 

From http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org   ……..

 

 “But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.” (1) (end excerpt)

 

In the case of Guantanamo detainees, one judge declared that while some corporations have human rights, some humans do not. 

 

It is important to understand the creation of corporate personhood in the context of our government and its corporate agencies.  The judge in the above case referring to detainee’s was obviously referring to the corporate personhood of THE UNITED STATES as superior to the human rights of the detainee.  This kind of judicial and preferential treatment with regards to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES is helping to establish the precedence which will be used in subsequent legal battles where the rights of the individual are cast aside in favor of the corporation.

 

These are some of the government agencies which have been recreated as corporations:

• Conrail                                                                              AMTRAK
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting                               Commodity Credit Corp.
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation                           Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
• Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board                   Legal Services Corporation      
• United States government sponsored enterprise              Overseas Private Investment Corporation
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation                        Export-Import Bank of the United States

·   Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation                     Reconstruction Finance Corp.     

Add to this list the FDA, USDA, HHS, HSD, DoA, DoD, and every other government agency. Each and every one of them including the corporate federal government (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) is listed on Dunn & Bradstreet and is issued a DUNS credit report.  Each and every one is a for-profit corporation.                     

 

Also included in the corporate recreation of our government is the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage.(2)

Before we can ever hope to clean up the corruption of our government, we first have to eliminate the incorporation of the government that took place in 1871.  Everything that has transpired since that year is a direct result of the corporate coup that overthrew the legitimate legal government of the United States. 

Once you understand that what you are fighting is not the government, but rather a, corporation acting as government, things begin to fall into place.   Understanding  that what you are dealing with is a collection of governmental corporations, the aberrations in our legal system, the trashing of our constitution and the loss of our civil rights all begins to make sense. 

©2008 Marti Oakley

(1)

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/guantanamo_human_persons.php

 

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Governmentowned_companies_in_the_United_States

Nothing less than treason

In what is nothing less than a step towards martial law and the North American Union, U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renaurt signed an agreement with Canadian Air Force Lt-Gen. Marc Dumais  which is nothing less than a treaty, called the Civil Assistance Plan.  This so-called agreement (treaty) signals the intended use of the military of Canada on U.S. soil, against U.S. Citizens. 

The flowery language in the public announcement from United States Northern Command appears to imply that without the assistance of Canadian troops, our military might not be able to efficiently respond in the event of a national emergency.  Supposedly, if we have a flood, hurricane, forest fire, earthquake or another terrorist attack additional forces that are more flexible and adaptive are needed and these forces are, for some reason, not to be found within the 1.5 million in our own military.

Our military isn’t supposed to respond in the first place, much less with the assistance of foreign soldiers.  We have made similar agreements (treaty’s) with other nations including Germany and Mexico. 

It isn’t a national disaster or attack from terrorists that the two governments are preparing for.  It is the anticipated civil revolts resulting from the intent to merge the U.S, Canada and Mexico; and the intentional creation of a food shortage over this year along with the forced collapse of our economies that has them worried.  What if the peasants revolt?

What concerns me most in this treasonous pact are those terms, flexible and adaptive.  I can’t imagine any military more flexible and adaptive than our own….so what could this really mean?

In the context of the North American Union, it means soldiers who wouldn’t be firing on family and friends…on their countrymen.  The subconscious sense of national identity would allow Canadian soldiers to view us as an enemy.  That sense would not likely include natural inhibitions our own military might have about attacking U.S. citizens under a declaration of martial law.  The reverse would be likely for the U.S. military on Canadian soil.

We have a little known law called “The Logan Act”.  This act makes it a felony for any person to enter into agreements or treaty’s, or even conversations with foreign nations that in any way work to undermine the United States as a nation.  It is only with permission from those with the authority to do so, that any discussions or meetings can occur….and these still may not include anything that undermines the laws or sovereignty of the U.S..

I would like to know who gave Gen. Renaurt the permission to enter into this agreement with foreign nations?  Whomever, that person was, is guilty of a felony as is the General.

Our constitution says that treaty’s are the law of the land.  These must be adhered to.  But, treaty’s also must abide by the sovereign laws of the U.S.  They also must pass both houses of congress and be approved before being adopted.  Which is exactly why “treaty” is never used in these illegal pacts and the word “agreement” is substituted.  This bypasses congress altogether and allows unhindered assaults on our sovereignty. 

 These “agreements” are illegal and unconstitutional regardless of who initiated them.  There are no provisions in our Constitution for such agreements.  This would include the North American Free Trade Agreement.   The Central America Free Trade Agreement.  The Free Trade Area of the America’s Agreement, and a host of other agreements that are destroying our economy and forfeiting our sovereignty. 

This brings me back to a question that seems to run through my mind daily.  Where the hell is our congress?  Whether Democrat or Republican not one of them has made any effort to end this corruption of our laws and of our Constitution.  And, not one of these bloated politicians has spoken one word about this treasonous pact.  Dead silence.

Oh! Except for Ron Paul, he of course, has.  Well…. there’s one in a row.

 

Don’t think they are worried about this either.  If we protest too much they can always vote themselves retro-active immunity from any prosecution…..and then call on Canada’s military to silence us.

Marti Oakley  Copyright 2008 

 Resource: http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html