16 votes

The US Federal Government Can Go Bankrupt Completely and Not Infect the Rest of the Country Because it's a Corporation

The United States Federal Government is a Corporation and can be liquidated in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

The 17 Trillion Dollar District of Columbia Corporation Debt Is Not National Debt!

The debt of the Federal Government Of The United States Of America Corporation as Enacted is theirs and theirs alone! The States Don't Have to Pay on It!

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 aka “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia (41st Congress, 3d Sess., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted 1871-02-21) is an Act of Congress, which revoked the individual charters of the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the County of Washington and created a new city government for the entire District of Columbia. The legislation effectively merged what had been separate municipalities within the federal territory into a single entity. It is for this reason that the city, while legally named the District of Columbia, is still commonly known as Washington, D.C. However, this act was abolished in 1874, and while the name did not change, the territorial Governor was replaced with a three-member Board of Commissioners appointed by the President. This system existed until 1974 when the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowed for District residents to elect their own mayor.

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/...

District of Columbia Home Rule Act - As Amended Through 1997

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/...

The Stock Share Holders of the Washington D.C. Corporation are alone responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt, made so by the Act of 1871 and subsequent Act revisions.

IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A CORPORATION?
IF TRUE, SO WHAT?
© 2007 by G. Edward Griffin. Revised 2007 December 17.

"A CHARTER FOR CITY GOVERNMENT
My own analysis is different. While it is true that Washington DC was created by the Act of 1871, its territory was limited to the District of Columbia and it was defined as a municipal corporation, which means it was limited to the affairs of city government. Three years later, on June 20, 1874, a new Act was passed by Congress that abolished the original city government and replaced it with a three-man commission, appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Its scope as a municipality did not change. A third Act of Congress, dated June 11, 1878, clarified the powers of the Commission but retained all the essential features of the previous Act, especially those that defined the nature of the District of Columbia as a municipal administrative unit. The following overview, taken from a Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U.S. 453 (1901) 181 U.S. 453) describes this evolution:

The 1st section of the act 'to provide a government for the District of Columbia,' approved February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. [181 U.S. 453, 458] 419, chap. 62), provided: 'That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.'

A governor and legislature were created; also a board of public works, to which was given the control and repair of the streets, avenues, alleys, and sewers of the city of Washington, and all other works which might be intrusted to their charge by either the legislative assembly or Congress. They were empowered to disburse the moneys received for the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys, sewers, roads, and bridges, and to assess upon adjoining property specially benefited thereby a reasonable proportion of the cost, not exceeding one third.

June 20, 1874, an act was passed entitled 'An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for Other Purposes.' 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337. By this act the government established by the act of 1871 was abolished and the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate was authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and authority vested in the governor and the board of public works, except as afterwards limited by the act.

By a subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should 'remain and continue a municipal corporation,' as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District (brought forward from the act of 1871), and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the act of 1874."

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?...

It also follows, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created a Banking Corporation with Stock Share Holders.

The accumulated debt held on the Federal Reserve Corporation's balance sheet belongs to The Stock Share Holders of the Federal Reserve Corporation, and the owners of its Member Banks, period.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

http://www.llsdc.org/FRA-LH/

District of Columbia Act of 1871 Defacto formed 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkauG6qE8k&feature=relmfu

District of Columbia Act 1871 De Facto formed 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmUuKd6ucM&feature=relmfu

District of Columbia Act 1871 De Facto formed 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpMMnJWExNU&feature=relmfu

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The authority of the Federal

The authority of the Federal Government over the American people is a complete fraud.

A few people impose rules of the game and try to enforce compliance through sheer force of their own will without actual authority. I call those kind of people psychotic mentally deranged insane persons.

So basically they can do with

So basically they can do with the US Gov almost exactly what they did with General Motors. The Old GM goes completely bankrupt and The New GM replaces it. Nobody notices because The New GM uses very similar naming and now owns all the rights to the logos, trademarks & etc of The Old GM. Looks the same, but legally is a new entity.

...

Wow.

A truly enlightening post. This is the type of stuff I want to see.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

where to start

1. The DC govt is not our federal govt.

2. While the fed govt has a corporation, for doing business that requires such, it is not 'only' or 'entirely' a corporation.

3. None of that has anything much to do with the federal reserve.

4. You need to really be more skeptical when reading stuff on the internet.

5. Your mom is mad at you for missing the bus that day when you had to get to civics class in high school, and she'll give you an early curfew if you continue to publicly spew stupidity.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Not really at all accurate,

Not really at all accurate, even the premise. If a huge corporation goes bankrupt, that is a ton of jobs lost, revenue lost, production lost, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

(didnt bother reading comments below, so excuse me if i repeat)

Only if you compare the us to a gilded age mining company that forced its workers to use mining scrip at the point of a gun, and it was about to go bankrupt but had no shortage of ammunition, and was full of (to use a word I learned yesterday from Alex Jones) imperious control freaks. Yes I suppose they are a corporation.

Séamusín

Not only is the United States

Not only is the United States government a corporation, every town, village and city is also incorporated.

CAFR

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

A Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other governmental entity that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_...

Total assets vs. liabilities.

Do the math, Uncle Sam is swimming in the black, not the red...and it shows in so many ways.

The, 'National Debt,' is only 1 of about 20 different sets of books the government keeps.

How many trillions of dollars of, "debt," were created by interest alone?

The USG could pay off the debt tomorrow if they really wanted to, but they use the "debt," as a political instrument instead.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

BUMP!!!

Awesome Post!Sharing this everywhere!

Good Post!

The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CORPORATION is already bankrupt, in receivership. It's paying back interest on debt with no progress towards the principal. To them, we are slaves forbidden to own land or property OUTRIGHT. Prior to 1913 most property owners had "Allodial" title aka Total ownership of their lands, free from taxation or government control. We have signed away our freedom and are now part of a feudal system. we are nothing more than labor units to them.

Label Jars, Not People!

.

.

Only Property Owners in DC are Responsible for National Debt

All of the District of Columbia is the incorporated territory of The Federal Government Corporation. That's the extent of their corporate influence.

You misunderstand the 1871 Act entirely.

But you are correct that if the current government defaults, it will not be a huge problem, other than the 50 States will be forced to reorganize our form of government to meet our financial obligations, just as we did in 1789, 1870, and 1933. Like the last two times, we may be simply required to make minor adjustments. However, if those two measures appear accurately as merely abject failures, rather than solutions, we will be forced to make more fundamental changes, and considering the pattern from 1776 to 1789, the trend will be toward more centralized control, and more despotic government.

But make no mistake, we will NOT be able to repudiate any debt.

Repudiating the debt has

Repudiating the debt has nothing to do with anything. The corporation is insolvent and simply files for bankruptcy.

Back to the beginning - you misunderstand the 1871

Act.

The United States of America is no more or less "incorporated" than it was in 1776.

All that Act did was dissolve separate cities in D.C. and place the entire territory under a single government, which Congress does, and always had complete control over.

They could recreate the City of Washington if they so chose, and that would change NOTHING concerning "incorporation" of the government of the U.S.A. or the U.S.A. itself.

You are reading things in that simply are not there.

Yep

prepare to be downvoted from basements across america

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

but

didn't that act also relieve them so called reps from having to
be our voice?
what i thought it did do was this,create a fiction,and the people think
that the fiction is real,and has to be answered to
this fiction (the incorp) is not a living breathing entity,such as people are
so what they have done was bankrupt the corp
which is still a falsity since before the civil war,at this time the southern reps walked out of congress,and it has never reconvened
What this corp has done was create a situation where we financed every government from the sweat of our brows,so we,the american tax payers
own most everything,just by working in their contrived scenarios

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

yes , but sadly

not everything you read on the internet was correct.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

It has to be correct

and factual,it is on the internet afterall
and they can't put things on the i-net that are false
Its true,I read that on the internet

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

yes, indeed

I have to say, you're onto something here.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

No, not at all.

Prior to the Act of 1871, there was the District of Columbia created by the ceding of territory from Virginia and Maryland. (it straddled the river in those days)

In that district, Congress had created a county with boundaries coterminous with the District. (in short, the district was a single county)

Inside that, there were multiple cities and towns.

Washington was one, Georgetown was another, and Alexandria another, for example.

At various times, Congress had either abolished or re-created the county and it's government. (which they always retain supreme control over)

They also created and abolished various towns/cities in the district and changed their form of government. I think even once or twice, they kept some towns, but abolished their governments, leaving them under the arm of the county government.

In 1871, they settled the mess, and abolished all cities and towns as distinct entities, and created ONE government for the entire district.

It's remained that way ever since.

I'd have to refresh my memory, but this might also be when the Virgina portion was ceded back, so that Alexandria and nearby towns are now in Virginia, and no longer in the District.

THAT is what the Act of 1871 did.

Nothing more. There are people reading things into it that are not there.

They do not understand that "incorporating" a political entity is NOT creating a "corporation" like a business incorporates, though both have similar roots in law.

There are SOME similarities and SOME things that are exactly the same, but that does not mean that one is less real than a non-incorporated area.

ALL political bodies are "incorporated." You could not for example, have any State, say, Virgina, be in existence and NOT be "incorporated." The two ideas aren't just synonymous, they are one and the same.

Now, the situation where you and I are considered by the courts as "legal fictions" with "personas" instead of our actual selves, or where you have people doing business under their own name instead of under a legal fiction—that is an entirely different matter.

Corporations can file for

Corporations can file for bankruptcy protection.

The problem is the states and

The problem is the states and the people are ignorant of these facts. and the corporation has pledged the wealth and assets of the people and states as collateral on the debt that is what the whole birth certificate/licensing scheme is all about its all contracts to make the people sureties for the debt.

However the contracts are null and void for they were not fully disclosed to the people. So still the ignorance of the people of all this is the biggest problem.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Exactly.

Exactly.

Exit strategy?

So I am assuming that all the FRN´s and FRN denominated debt would be null and void, would this to happen. Both private and public that is.

That would mean that any new fiat currency would suffer massive inflation as it was adopted. Just imagine every house getting a mortage at the same time and all trying to buy capital goods.

After Monopoly

I don't know how much is known about the POWER being applied competitively by States like Utah, but I think it may be worth measuring accurately.

Example:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700185268/The-Midas-touch...

"On March 25th of this year, Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law the Utah Legal Tender Act, making gold and silver coin legal tender in Utah. Nearly six months to the day after that ground breaking event, more than 150 people gathered in Salt Lake City to deliberate over the future of monetary reform."

Not only Utah, there are other States moving the same direction, which is (if I am not mistaken) a move away from the Fraud known as National Debt.

Anyone with a working brain, willfully applied, even a child, can see that The National Debt is a Fraud, a complete absurdity, a Joke that is being played upon those who are foolish enough to allow themselves to be victims to this confidence scheme, which has been going on since 1788: by the way.

This is a Joke:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That is even more absurd, as a cruel Joke, because it is The Official Joke.

Here is another example of The Official Joke:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

"shall not be questioned" is a thought crime?

Whose idea is it to turn due process of law, due everyone without exception, into a thought crime?

That is an official Joke, and it may be being played on you, so look in the mirror and find out.

Other States are also not playing around with the Official Joke, and an example of that NEWS can be found with a Web Search on words like States, Gold, Money, Competition.

Example:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/index.htm

Quote:

_____________________________________________________

Of all the state proposals circulating right now, Republican-controlled states including South Carolina, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana have the best chance of passing their proposed bills this year, said American Principles Project's Danker. If just one or two states implement an alternative currency, it could have a Domino effect, he said.

"I think we could get a couple passed in this legislative session, and that would show this is mainstream, popular and it would be a justification for more of the risk-averse states for doing this," he said.

There are, of course, many people who think the recent push for alternative state currencies should be stopped in its tracks. David Parsley, a professor of economics and finance at Vanderbilt University, said he thinks state-issued currencies are a "terrible" idea.

"Having 50 Feds" could debase the U.S. dollar and even potentially lead the country into default, he said. "The single currency in the United States is working just fine," said Parsley. "I have no idea why anyone would want to destroy something so successful -- unless they actually wanted to destroy the country."
_______________________________________________________

Ending the FED ends The IRS too.

In case you didn't know (or in case I am wrong):

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

_________________________________________________________
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted.

The mode of levying taxes is of the utmost consequence; and yet here it is to be determined by those who have neither knowledge of our situation, nor a common interest with us, nor a fellow-feeling for us. T...
________________________________________________________

The Joke being played on you guys, anyone still believing in the fairytale of National Debt, was started by people like Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, who were on the side of Monarchy, or "Nationalism" which is just another False Front for their real goal, which is a Single Legal Money Monopoly POWER.

People like George Mason and Patrick Henry knew the score, and the Joke being played on you includes the Joke that The Founding Fathers where ONE MONOPOLY GROUP.

The Founding Fathers were not ONE MONOPOLY GROUP, there was a very significant split between Group A and Group B as such:

1.
Involuntary Government
Monarchists, Federalists, Nationalists, Monopolists, Criminals, Liars, Thieves, and those who worked to gain criminal control over their version of Government.

2.
Voluntary Government
Democratic Federated Republicans, Common Law practitioners, Rebels, Revolutionaries, who were called by the FALSE NAME of Anti-Federalists.

If you are fooled, how can you know?

Keep paying your "Federal" Income Taxes with your Fraud Money from The "Federal" Reserve?

What ever happened to Common Sense?

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Joe

Updated.

Updated.

Bump.

Bump.

This is how we can use

This is how we can use the Iceland Model.

Just trying to get us ready

Just trying to get us ready for the inevitable.