Dear Friends,
For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
theremust be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.
There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
eitherthe "United States" or the "United States of America".
In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
ofColumbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
oneand the same.� In that Act of 1871, Congress also
expresslyextended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871
In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
theSupreme Court wrote:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
"We may say in passing that the argument that the
United States may be treated as a corporation
organizedunder its own laws, that is, under the
Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained
asnot to merit serious consideration."
Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
originatedin the definition of "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union
See Paragraph 5 quoted here:
"5.� The United States of America are a corporation
endowedwith the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey
andreceive property.�1 Marsh.Dec. 177, 181.
But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
againstthe United States without authority of law."
Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
evidencethat the "United States of America" are plural,
asimplied by the plural term "States".� Also, the author
ofthat definition switches to "United States" in the second
sentence.� This only adds to the confusion, because the
term"United States" has three (3) different legal meanings:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,
andit is NOT an Act of Congress.� Here, again,
bevery waryof courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence
ofa proper Act of Congress.� See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the
statutedefining the required enacting clause:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:
"nosuit can be broughtagainst the United States
withoutauthority of law".�That statement is not only
correct;� it also provides another important clue:
Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States"
tosue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing
uponthe "United States of America" to sue, or be sued,
assuch.
Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term
"United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used
todescribe the Union formed legally by those Articles:
Articles of Confederation and perpetualUnion between the States
ofNew Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Article I.�The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America."
Article II.�Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,
andindependence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,
whichis not by this Confederation expressly delegated
totheUnited States, in Congress assembled.�
[end excerpt]
When they came together the first time to form
aUnion of several (plural) States, they decided
tocall themselves the "United States of America".
Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
"United States of America" from "United States"
inCongress assembled.� The States formally
delegatedcertain powers to the federal government,
whichis clearly identified in those Articles as the
"United States".
Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
the50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
refersto the federal government.
The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
throughoutTitle 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
inD.C.� There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the
term"United States of America" is used, and there it is used
incorrect contradistinction to "United States":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,
theconsistent use of "United States" to refer to the federal
governmentcarries enormous weight.� Title 28 is the latest word
onthis subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law
onJune 25, 1948.� Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates
Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.
To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,
theentity "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
incorporatedtwice in the State of Delaware:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp
The main problem that arises from these questions is that
United StatesAttorneys are now filing lawsuits and
prosecutingcriminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]
butwithout any powers of attorney to do so.� Compare
28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent
the"United States" and its agencies in federal courts):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html
They are NOT "United States of America Attorneys", OK?
First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney
torepresent Delaware corporations in federal courts;
Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so
andCongress never conferred any powers of attorney
onthem to do so either.
Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented
bytheir respective State Attorneys General;� therefore,
U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent
anyof the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies,
either.
They are "U.S. Attorneys" NOT "U.S.A. Attorneys", OK?
Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney
toattempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf
ofthe "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic].� And,
such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html
There are quite a few "activists" running around the Internet
claimingthat the "United States" and the "United States of
America" are both corporations.� These claims are not correct,
forthe reasons already stated above.
A similar error occurs when these so-called �activists� cite
thefederal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only �proof�
thatthe �United States� was incorporated by Congress.
Here�s the pertinent text of that statute:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html
As used in this chapter:
...
(15)� "United States" means --
(A)�a Federal corporation;
(B)� an agency, department, commission, board, or
otherentity of the United States; �or
(C)�an instrumentality of the United States.
[end excerpt]
First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition
islimited to �this chapter� i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 �
Federal Debt Collection Procedures.� Overlooking the
limitedscope of such definitions is a very common error
amongmany, if not all self-styled experts.� At best, this section
cannotbe used as evidence that the federal government
shouldbe treated as a valid corporation for all other intents
andpurposes.� It takes a LOT more text than this one limited
definitionto create any federal corporation!� Compare the
originalStatutes at Large that created the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, for example.
Secondly, from the evidence above it should already
beclear that the �United States� (federal government)
isnot now, and never has been, a federal corporation.
The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the
term�United States� to embrace all existing federal
corporations.� Because the United States was not
anexisting corporation when Congress enacted
section 3002, that statute did not create and could
nothave created the United States as a federal
corporation in the first instance.
Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court
toldCongress that it was barred from re-defining
anyterms that are used in the federal Constitution.
�United States� occurs in several places, because it is central
tothe entire purpose of that Constitution.� Therefore,
thelegislative attempt to re-define �United States� at
section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because
itviolates the Eisner Prohibition.
Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,
whichrender it null and void for vagueness.� Here they are,
incase you missed them:
�United States� means �an agency, department, commission,
board, or other entity of the United States;
or
�United States� means � an instrumentality of the United States.
It is a fundamental violation of proper English grammar to use
theterm being defined in any definition of that term, and such a
violationhas clearly happened here.� If you don�t yet recognize
thetautologies, then change one part of this definition to read:
The term �United States� here also embraces any instrumentality
ofthe federal government.
At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and
removesthe vagueness.� Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define
theterm �United States� still violates the Eisner Prohibition.
For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some
ofthe many legal ramifications of these widespread errors, please
see this Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:� 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice