I need help researching Government Conspiracy Theory woo

[Keerax]

Ok, here's the backstory. I've been dating my girlfriend for nearly 4 years now. Her parents are absolutely wonderful people but also a bit steeped in woo. During the course of our relationship I have come out to her family as being not only an atheist but also a skeptic (in the sense that, without proof, I suspend my belief/disbelief). This leads to some very interesting conversations with my girlfriend's father, who is a major believer that the Rothschilds are ruling the world, that we are heading for a NWO, that the government was probably behind the inner workings of 9/11, etc...

I have discussed with him on many occasions the science behind whatever claims I had knowledge of (i.e. the 9/11 buildings did not fall at free-fall) and whenever possible, I direct him towards the information that contradicts what he's currently been reading (this forum and Gravy's site are favorites). However, if the content doesn't agree with his preconceived notions he will skim through it, but he won't read it as voraciously as the websites that provide "proof" of the goings on in secret, dark rooms and the people that control the world (once again, the Rothschilds being a favorite).

So here's the meat of the matter: I've told him several times that the area of woo that I deal with is typically religious/anti-scientific ********. Scientology, homeopathy, exorcism, accupuntcure, intelligent design, etc... The things that people willingly waste their money and their lives on. The shady goings ons and conspiracy theories surrounding governments just aren't my thing. He however, can't seem to remember that even though I am a skeptic, I do not keep up with all things woo, and will regularly want to discuss with me things I have no clue about. The latest instance of this is that he sent my girlfriend back to our apartment with this website printed out (http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm) and has "challenged" me to research it and try to remain skeptical/come up with evidence that contradicts what the article says.

Thus I turn to you, dear JREF'ers. I know several of you specialize in this particular type of woo and I would request your help in meeting this "challenge". It would be greatly appreciated if those of you with knowledge refuting or even confirming these claims could help me out with a subject I know virtually nothing about and havn't the first clue where to start with research.

One other thing. My girlfriend's father and I get along fantastically and I would appreciate if there were no name calling and/or slander directed his way for his particular beliefs. He is a man of upstanding moral character, a great father, and one of the people I know I can trust with my personal secrets. I still have yet to actually come out to my own family in regards to my atheism. So seriously, please refrain from insulting him.

In public sections of the forum, please mask profanity entirely.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[~enigma~]

Ok, here's the backstory. I've been dating my girlfriend for nearly 4 years now. Her parents are absolutely wonderful people but also a bit steeped in woo. During the course of our relationship I have come out to her family as being not only an atheist but also a skeptic (in the sense that, without proof, I suspend my belief/disbelief). This leads to some very interesting conversations with my girlfriend's father, who is a major believer that the Rothschilds are ruling the world, that we are heading for a NWO, that the government was probably behind the inner workings of 9/11, etc...

I have discussed with him on many occasions the science behind whatever claims I had knowledge of (i.e. the 9/11 buildings did not fall at free-fall) and whenever possible, I direct him towards the information that contradicts what he's currently been reading (this forum and Gravy's site are favorites). However, if the content doesn't agree with his preconceived notions he will skim through it, but he won't read it as voraciously as the websites that provide "proof" of the goings on in secret, dark rooms and the people that control the world (once again, the Rothschilds being a favorite).

So here's the meat of the matter: I've told him several times that the area of woo that I deal with is typically religious/anti-scientific ********. Scientology, homeopathy, exorcism, accupuntcure, intelligent design, etc... The things that people willingly waste their money and their lives on. The shady goings ons and conspiracy theories surrounding governments just aren't my thing. He however, can't seem to remember that even though I am a skeptic, I do not keep up with all things woo, and will regularly want to discuss with me things I have no clue about. The latest instance of this is that he sent my girlfriend back to our apartment with this website printed out (http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm) and has "challenged" me to research it and try to remain skeptical/come up with evidence that contradicts what the article says.

Thus I turn to you, dear JREF'ers. I know several of you specialize in this particular type of woo and I would request your help in meeting this "challenge". It would be greatly appreciated if those of you with knowledge refuting or even confirming these claims could help me out with a subject I know virtually nothing about and havn't the first clue where to start with research.

One other thing. My girlfriend's father and I get along fantastically and I would appreciate if there were no name calling and/or slander directed his way for his particular beliefs. He is a man of upstanding moral character, a great father, and one of the people I know I can trust with my personal secrets. I still have yet to actually come out to my own family in regards to my atheism. So seriously, please refrain from insulting him.

OMG...this means there is no Santa!!! Seriously, what is the problem here. The premise is moronic at best and I can tell you from first hand experience that this is the beginning of the tax evxasion bs. Ask him what happened to the Browns since they didn't pay their "illegal" income tax because the USA is a corporation.

 

[Keerax]

Ask him what happened to the Browns since they didn't pay their "illegal" income tax because the USA is a corporation.

Asking him what happened to the Browns without any knowledge of who they are would be detrimental to what I'm trying to do here. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to the information you're refering to?

 

[~enigma~]

Asking him what happened to the Browns without any knowledge of who they are would be detrimental to what I'm trying to do here. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to the information you're refering to?

He would definitely know who Ed and Elaine Brown are and you could have looked it up but for the sake of clarity...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lewis_Brown

 

[Keerax]

~enigma~ please realize that I'm not trying to be snarky or unappreciative. It's just difficult for me to look up information about someone based solely on their last name, especially when I have no prior information regarding any of this really. That's why I'm here. To glean what information I can from those of you who know more than me.
I appreciate the link and I'll check it out.

 

[~enigma~]

~enigma~ please realize that I'm not trying to be snarky or unappreciative. It's just difficult for me to look up information about someone based solely on their last name, especially when I have no prior information regarding any of this really. That's why I'm here. To glean what information I can from those of you who know more than me.
I appreciate the link and I'll check it out.

Not a problem Keerax but I really would try to let your girlfriend's father know to treat the Browns as a warning of the wooish path he is on with the corporate USA bs.

 

[Keerax]

Not a problem Keerax but I really would try to let your girlfriend's father know to treat the Browns as a warning of the wooish path he is on with the corporate USA bs.

Oh, he's been on this path for years. He's a hippy and grew up in the late 60's or early 70's. But he's not planning on foregoing the paying of taxes any time soon. And the man does know how to party!

 

[boloboffin]

Look at the last page of the District's Organic Law.

http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf

The municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia (and that's all it is) replaced the two municipal corporations known as the city of Washington and the city of Georgetown.

 

[Edmund Standing]

if the content doesn't agree with his preconceived notions he will skim through it, but he won't read it as voraciously as the websites that provide "proof" of the goings on in secret

Given this, I don't know what you hope to achieve in providing him with any refutation of this article. He won't listen, by your own admission.

However, you might like to ask him why he trusts an article found on a website run by a Holocaust denier who advocates for Holocaust deniers and promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

 

[Keerax]

Look at the last page of the District's Organic Law.

http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf

The municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia (and that's all it is) replaced the two municipal corporations known as the city of Washington and the city of Georgetown.

After looking up the definition of what a "corporation" is and reading through a few pages of that document (I'm still intending on finishing it, I just wanted to type this while I was still coherent) am I correct in my assessment?

That the District of Columbia was formed by combining two already existing corporations (the cities of Washington and of Georgetown) as an independent element of the government of America. This corporation's purpose is to provide services for the government and remains held accountable to (by?) the existing government. This corporation does not become higher than/usurp the pre-existing government. (I assume this because many offices held in the newly created positions were all "appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

As I read more and come up with more speculation as to what this document -actually- does, I'll post them here for disection.

 

[tanabear]

Thus I turn to you, dear JREF'ers. I know several of you specialize in this particular type of woo and I would request your help in meeting this "challenge". It would be greatly appreciated if those of you with knowledge refuting or even confirming these claims could help me out with a subject I know virtually nothing about and havn't the first clue where to start with research.

What types of "woo" does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? Explosives can destroy buildings. What do the "debunkers" believe in? Government propaganda.

 

[Keerax]

However, you might like to ask him why he trusts an article found on a website run by a Holocaust denier who advocates for Holocaust deniers and promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

I'll mention it just because it seems like something fun to discuss with him but ad hominem attacks against the author of the website based on other articles will probably not be useful in refuting this particular article.

While I agree that the author is more than just a little insane, one article can't be refuted on the basis of the content of the others. In my particular case I advocate the reform of laws pertaining to and the legalization of marijuana and other "soft" drugs. I myself am not an addict but I do believe that, after extensive research, marijuana is not any more harmful than other legal substances (and in fact much less so) and that it should all be left up to personal choice.

Now then, the serendipity website contains content that I find 99% of to be questionable, however, there is an article advocating the legalization of marijuana. It wouldn't be prudent of me to say everything on the website is obviously wrong because so much of it is crazy. I'd then be saying that something on the website I agree with (even if we come to the point by different avenues) is wrong because a crazy person wrote it.

Eddited to add: I just read the article I'm refering to completely instead of the first little bit and, wow, this person is nuts.

 

[Keerax]

What types of "woo" does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? Explosives can destroy buildings. What do the "debunkers" believe in? Government propaganda.

What does this have to do with what I'm discussing in this thread? Nothing. If you want to proclaim the truth of the 9/11 conspiracy please do it elsewhere. If you'd like to add actual content to the discussion going on here, then please feel free.

 

[SpitfireIX]

After looking up the definition of what a "corporation" is and reading through a few pages of that document (I'm still intending on finishing it, I just wanted to type this while I was still coherent) am I correct in my assessment?

That the District of Columbia was formed by combining two already existing corporations (the cities of Washington and of Georgetown) as an independent element of the government of America. This corporation's purpose is to provide services for the government and remains held accountable to (by?) the existing government. This corporation does not become higher than/usurp the pre-existing government. (I assume this because many offices held in the newly created positions were all "appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

As I read more and come up with more speculation as to what this document -actually- does, I'll post them here for disection.

I'm working on a detailed critique, but it's going to take a while (worked all through lunch, and not even half done). But for now, take a look at the following; I think this demonstrates one of Ms. Giuliani's major misapprehensions:

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Edition, 1856:

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person. Browne's Civ. Law, 99; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 418; 2 Kent's Com. 215. Mr. Kyd, (Corpor. vol. 1, p. 13,) defines a corporation as follows: " A corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of many; individuals united in one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law, with a capacity of acting in several respects as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence." In the case of Dartmouth College against Woodward, 4 Wheat. Rep. 626, Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law," continues the judge, "it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessityof perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use." See 2 Bl. Corn. 37.

2. The words corporation and incorporation are frequently confounded, particularly in the old books. The distinction between them is, however, obvious; the one is the institution itself, the other the act by which the institution is created.

3. Corporations are divided into public and private.

4. Public corporations, which are also called political, and sometimes municipal corporations, are those which have for their object the government of 'a portion of the state; Civil Code of Lo. art. 420 and although in such case it involves some private interests, yet, as it is endowed with a portion of political power, the term public has been deemed appropriate.

5. Another class of public corporations are those which are founded for public, though not for political or municipal purposes, and the, whole interest in which belongs to the government. The Bank of Philadelphia, for example, if the whole stock belonged exclusively to the government, would be a public corporation; but inasmuch as there are other owners of the stock, it is a private corporation. Domat's Civil Law,- 452 4 Wheat. R. 668; 9 Wheat. R. 907 8 M'Cord's R. 377 1 Hawk's R. 36; 2 Kent's Corn. 222.

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.

7. Private corporations. In the popular meaning of the term, nearly every corporation is public, inasmuch as they are created for the public benefit; but if the whole interest does not belong to the government, or if the corporation is not created for the administration of political or municipal power, the corporation is private. A bank, for instance, may be created by the government for its own uses; but if the stock is owned by private persons, it is a private corporation, although it is created by the government, and its operations partake of a private nature. 9 Wheat. R. 907. The rule is the same in the case of canal, bridge, turnpike, insurance companies, and the like. Charitable or literary corporations, founded by private benefaction, are in point of law private corporations, though dedicated to public charity, or for the general promotion of learning. Ang. & Ames on Corp. 22.

8. Private corporations are divided into ecclesiastical and lay.

9. Ecclesiastical corporations, in the United States, are commonly called religious corporations they are created to enable religious societies to manage with more facility and advantage, the temporalities belonging to the church or congregation.

10. Lay corporations are divided into civil and eleemosynary. Civil corporations are created for an infinite variety of temporal purposes, such as affording facilities for obtaining loans of money; the making of canals, turnpike roads, and the like. And also such as are established for the advancement of learning. 1 Bl. Com. 471.

11. Eleemosynary corporations are such as are instituted upon a principle of charity, their object being the perpetual distribution of the bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed. Of this kind are hospitals for the relief of the impotent, indigent and sick, or deaf and dumb. 1 Kyd on Corp. 26; 4 Conn. R. 272; Angell & A. on Corp. 26.

12. Corporations, considered in another point of view, are either sole or agregate.

13. A sole corporation, as its name implies, consists of only one person, to whom and his successors belongs that legal perpetuity, the enjoyment of which is denied to all natural persons. 1 Black Com. 469. Those corporations are not common in the United States. In those states, however, where the religious establishment of the church of England was adopted, when they were colonies, together with the common law on that subject, the minister of the parish was seised of the freehold, as persona ecclesiae, in the same manner as in England; and the right of his successors to the freehold being thus established was not destroyed by the abolition of the regal government, nor can it be divested even by an act of the state legislature. 9 Cranch, 828.

14. A sole corporation cannot take personal property in succession; its corporate capacity of taking property is confined altogether to real estate. 9 Crancb, 43.

15. An aggregate corporation cousists of several persons, who are' united in one society, which is continued by a succession of members. Of this kind are the mayor or commonalty of a city; the heads and fellows of a college; the members of trading companies, and the like. 1 Kyd on Corp. 76; 2 Kent's Com. 221 Ang. & A. on Corp. 20. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. [second and third bolding mine]

One of several major problems here is that the author has quite obviously conflated municipal and civil corporations. The first page of the 1871 act explicitly states that the District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. Note that I deliberately chose a legal dictionary that was published relatively shortly before 1871 in order to head off any potential claim that usage has changed over the years.

 

[Loss Leader]

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm) and has "challenged" me to research it and try to remain skeptical/come up with evidence that contradicts what the article says.

OK, Keerax, I read the essay and it's all false.

I'll go through it as well as I can.

The first part is entirely opinion. It cites no facts so there's nothing to refute.

The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

False. The US has been heavily in debt to banks since its founding. Alexander Hamilton borrowed money from New York based banks to cover the federal government's first payroll. At the end of the civil war, US debt was $2.7 billion. Some of this was in war bonds held by US citizens but banks had also invested in war bonds.

It is also false that anything particularly new happened to the US debt during the 1870s. In fact, up until World War I, US policy was to pay down all debt as quickly as possible. In 1893, US debt sank below $900 million. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/noll.publicdebt

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES.

False. Here is the body of the Act. Ask your father-in-law-to-be to point to where in the Act this happens.

The Act does create the District of Columbia as a "municipal corporation." This, however, is significantly different than a mere corporation. While a corporation has shareholders who purchase stock and vote for their leaders by share in order to maximize profit, a municipal corporation has no shareholders, no stocks, no voting by shares and no mandate to create profits. In fact, municipal corporations have existed since the founding of the nation. All it means is that the state recognizes that local government as being properly constituted. I, for example, live in an incorporated village in an incorporated town in an incorporated county.

You can read New York's municipal laws here.

"The Constitution for the united states of America". The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is.

I have no idea what the author is even talking about. This is absolutely false. There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers all across the US. We advise our clients each and every day based on the guarantees in the Constitution. Tens of thousands of decisions are written each year based on the Constitution. We would notice if somehow the rule of law had been changed. It hasn't.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't.

Yes, capitalization is an insignificant change. As a lawyer, I can tell you with complete confidence that capitalization would change absolutely nothing. It is a distinction without a difference. It is ignored by law.

Think about it this way: if such silly tricks as capitalization could really be used to create new corporate bodies out of thin air, wouldn't we lawyers use them all the time? "You're honor, we're not infringing on the trademark for 'Burger King' because our client's hamburger chain is called 'BurgeR KinG'." That's not the way the world works.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is the book written by the man who taught me contracts. And here's his email address: mailto:[email protected] Ask him if capitalization is a significant change.

Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.

I don't even know what document the author is referring to. I posted the text of the 1871 Act and it has nothing in it about any of this stuff. It lays out the manner in which DC was governed (all of which was completely repealed in the 1970s, BTW). It just doesn't say any of this. Point to the text of the law that supports the author's statements.

This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school.

I was. I went to a place called law school where all they taught us was the law. And here's the great part - every single word of every single book I read while I was there is available for purchase. You can read exactly the same things I did and come to your own conclusions.

We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers.

Congress is made up of individuals elected by the people. "Congress" is not a monolithic institutions. Tens of thousands of elections have been held for congressional seats since 1871. In any one of those elections, the people had a chance to put in some honest person who would expose this evil deal with "bankers." Did they? Of course not. There is no "deal" to expose.

For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur.

It's not the bulk of your earnings. About a third of your earnings go to taxes. Of that, about ten to twenty percent goes to pay down the national debt.

How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent?

Was your girlfriend's father alive during the Reagan administration? The federal debt tripled from $1 trillion to $3 trillion during Reagan's presidency. If he voted during that time, if he enjoyed the increased safety brought about by defense spending, if he thought Reagan's limo should have gas in it, if he paid taxes to keep the electricity turned on at the State Department, then he gave his knowing consent to 66 cents out of every dollar the US owed.

With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law

False. The slow abandonment of the gold standard gave government and private business much, much more money for capital improvements. It is no accident that the vast mobilization of WWII took place without a gold standard or that the American highway system was built with fiat money. Read any one of a hundred books on the subject.

and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively.

False. US law is based on English common law. That draws some concepts from Roman civil law but abandons just as many. For instance, under Roman law, damages paid to a family for accidentally killing a person were based on the ethnicity of the family. Killing a Spaniard cost more than killing a Roman because the Spanish were thought to be more emotional and would "miss" their family member more.

The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic.

Utter gibberish. Does the author have any support for this?

I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

What a bizarre thing to quote. Here is the text of 28 USCA 3002. It's a standard definition section that preceeds almost any set of laws on any subject. The subject here, however, Is Chapter 176, "Federal Debt Collection Procedures." It outlines how individuals go about using federal law to collect a judgment that has been won against another individual.

The part the author wants us to pay attention to is this:

“United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

All this means is that when one is reading the Debt Collection law and one sees the phrase "United States," one should take it to mean the federal government, any federal corporation or any entity or instrumentality of the federal government. So, for instance, if somehow the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation got mixed up in your debt collection proceeding, this law says that any rights reserved to the United States regarding your personal debt collection are also available to the FDIC.

It does not say that the US is a federal corporation and, even if it did, it would only apply to the rules regarding collecting a debt.

Everything else in the essay is just repetative nonsense.

Hope this helps.

 

[Keerax]

I'm working on a detailed critique, but it's going to take a while (worked all through lunch, and not even half done).

I express my deepest thanks for helping me so thoroughly with this and anxiously await what you come up with. I'm still slogging through the 1871 document and it's starting to make my head hurt.

 

[Alt+F4]

So all the NWO had to do was change the word "for" to the word "of" and the next thing you know, they took over America. Ok, got it.

 

[Keerax]

Wanted to say thank you to you as well, Loss Leader. This is why I like the JREF forums so much. When one is polite and requests help with something specific, you all seem to be more than willing to donate your time and energy in granting the request that's been made of you.

 

[Loss Leader]

After looking up the definition of what a "corporation" is and reading through a few pages of that document (I'm still intending on finishing it, I just wanted to type this while I was still coherent) am I correct in my assessment?

That the District of Columbia was formed by combining two already existing corporations (the cities of Washington and of Georgetown) as an independent element of the government of America. This corporation's purpose is to provide services for the government and remains held accountable to (by?) the existing government. This corporation does not become higher than/usurp the pre-existing government.

You are incorrect. There is no "corporation" that is accountable to any "existing government." The government IS the municipal corporation.

The word "corporation" has at its root "corpus," which means "body." Anything that is a separate and distinct body is a corporation. In general, we refer to two types of legal organisms: the natural person, who is any person ever born; and the corporation, which is an entity created by the consent of natural people.

You may think of a corporation as having stockholders and directors and a mandate for profit. But just because something is a "corporation" doesn't mean it has any of these things. It just means that natural people agree it exists as a separate entity. A church may be a religious corporation; a nursing home may be a non-profit corporation; and a government may be a municipal corporation. Religious corporations may have members instead of stockholders. Non-profits may have no stockholders or members at all. And government corporations may be entirely open to the will of the people.

All that an incorporated municipality means is that the government exists as an entity. Nothing else.

 

[Athyrio]

What types of "woo" does the 9/11 Truth Movement believe in? Explosives can destroy buildings. What do the "debunkers" believe in? Government propaganda.

Here's a good thread for that. Drop in. Now, back to the corporation conspiracy.