CORPORATION AND BODY CORPORATE
June 1999
by Robert W. Wangrud
Here are some statements made by Corporate Guru’s:
"Go to the law library, look up under the Statutes at Large, photocopy
l04 pages, 41st Congress February 21, l871 and get your own copy
of the new constitution. Read the side notes."
"They are a corporation there is a new constitution and it is the foundation
for all of our problems today."
******************
I have a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large in my personal library. I assume Corporate Guru’s are disputing my claim the United States or the several States are not private corporations, but do create body corporates for Municipal purposes?
Definitions Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed., p. 340:
CLASSIFICATION
ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS AND RULES, CORPORATIONS ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
Public and Private. "A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government..."
"Private corporations are those founded by and composed of private individuals, for private purposes, as distinguished from governmental purposes, having no political or governmental franchises or duties"
"Another distinction between public and private corporations is that the former are not voluntary associations (as the latter are) and that there is no contractual relation between the government and a public corporation or between individuals who compose it"
All laws dealing with a body corporate under contract law are private corporations or private Citizens, as public corporations [body corporates] have no contracts between its members [body corporate], but private corporations do have contract between its members.
What I see, people are trying to deal with a public corporation (body corporate) under contract law when it administers statutes in its municipal form. It just wouldn’t fly!!!
For example, people say the State of Oregon is a private corporation and a driver’s license is a contract with the corporate State. This is not true! A driver’s license is a statutory created privilege administered through the Municipal power’s exercised by the body corporate. Now, whether or not these statutes are passed under the common-law jurisdiction or the Military Powers of the State, they both are enforced through the body corporate that has the municipal power to do so.
United States Statutes at Large. Vol.16, Feb. 21, 1871:
CHAP LXII- "...name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constuted a [[body corporate]] for municipal purposes..." (emphasis mine)
The District of Columbia is not a private corporation!!! The government does not operate exclusively under the contract side of this body corporate. One purpose of creating this body corporate is so the government can contract with Citizens in their status as Natural Persons or private corporations in their status as Artificial Entities to build things for the Government, (i.e. buildings, bridges, roadways, and etc.).
As a body corporate, the law is the government can be sued for breach of contract. You have to separate where a body corporate can be sued and where it can’t be sued under contract law. You can’t mix contract law with law that allows a Citizen to charge a body corporate with violations of the Constitution. What I see out there is patriots suing the body corporate using contract law for violations of Constitutional Law!?!?!?!
Looking at most of the statutes of 1871, are statutes passed under the Military Powers of the United States by Congress. This was a time when the Southern States were under Full Martial Law.
<end of article>
