Sunday, July 15, 2007

Date: Monday, 6 October 2003, 6:17 p.m.
In Response To: AREN'T" WE GULLIBLE'S" EASY TO SWINDLE ??? (Questionnairy) To:
Cc: mike [address redacted],
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <>
Mailing-List: list; contact
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [SupremeLaw] Excellent Essay on Piercing the Corporate Veils of Government by Charles Sprinkle I have done some minor editing to tune-up
the spelling and punctuation, and I added
paragraphs for easier reading. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell From: mike [address redacted]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] : RIGHT TO TRAVEL Sir Mike This is a long read, But worth every minute. It will explain More than I could in a 10 years. It explains: How the town, county or State you live in, is a Corp. As such; they see you, as a Member of the Corp. And you are. Until you take your self out of the Corp. State, City, County or Town. You do it, with an Affidavit, No big deal. Make "sure" to pass it to every one you Know. That's if you want your Liberty. Charles Sprinkle ________________________________________________________________ The term "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal one which identifies the
process where a court removes the protection provided individual members of
a corporation for criminal activity, and makes these members responsible for
their own actions. The reality, according to the original meaning of corporations, is that these
corporate groups were established exactly for that reason --
for unlawful purposes -- primarily to escape punishment for their crimes
by placing the blame on a fictional organization responsible to no one. The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon the
first part of the 1870's by declaring themselves a separate entity from
Constitutional government. This, of course, followed the war between the
states and the supposed Fourteenth Amendment (which lawfully never was, but
was accepted by the newly formed corporation called the "United States.") The fact that the Constitution had already established a United States was
inconsequential to those traitors in Congress because it was the
Constitution itself they wanted destroyed and the war, instigated by the
Jewish factions of Europe, was fought for this purpose. All the flowery
fictions blamed for the war are pure fantasy. Corporations, themselves, are
natural processes of society, that is, when a group of people gather for a
particular purpose, such as for forming a community, they are a corporation
and there can be no criminal intent attached thereto, but it is when
corporations are established with the power to declare themselves "bankrupt"
that makes them criminal. This is the situation of our government today; the
richest, most powerful nation on earth is "bankrupt." Just the thought is
ridiculous. Corporations are legal fictions; that is, they do not exist
except in the minds of men. Anyone can create a fantasy in their own mind
and make it do for them what they please, but these fantasies cannot nor do
they extend to areas outside the realm of personal capacity. Corporations
are made of living, breathing men, all with the same ideas and purposes. We
can look upon them with the same limitations as the individual, and that is
their jurisdiction is confined to the lawful area of their creation. A corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot think, it cannot act in any
manner, it cannot even communicate with natural man, and for this reason it
must have somebody, or bodies to speak and act for it, and the lawyers have
set themselves up for this task. The enormity of corporate enterprises is
limited only by imagination and they are gold mines for the bar
associations, which are corporations themselves. Even thieves must leave an
out for themselves, as they never know when the worm will turn; and "dumb"
burrowing rodents will have at least two exits from their dens. After years
of research, a few people have found what we believe to be that "out" from
corporate jurisdiction (which has been milking the citizens of this nation
for well over a century). We have had great success with this "out" and the
shocked looks and frenzies of Judges presented with this procedure show us
that we are on the right track. As all other sure things, however, we can't
rest on our laurels and be smug with our assumptions that it is fool proof. We have to remember that it took the lawyer profession many years to come up
with their gimmicks and they aren't going to fall over and play dead as we
proceed to break up their play houses and we know from experience that they
know how to play rough. The idea is to hit hard, fast, and as widespread as
possible before they can see what is happening and that is why we need as
much diversity and geographical application as we can muster. There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation
existence, which is what all this is about. The difficulty lies in
overcoming a lifetime of corporate propaganda and we have had great
difficulty in this area. We, who work with this procedure, went through the
same agonizing process before we realized that it really works. We were
looking for the complicated when the answer to our problems was right under
our noses all of the time. I don't mean to write a book and omit the meat of
my subject, but you will find that some prosecutors and judges just haven't
got the picture yet and will ask your source of information when you go
before them, and you need a little background to keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly simple procedure which is
outlined below. Not having access to laws of other States, I can only quote
from those to which I have access, and those are of Louisiana. We have tried
this system in Alabama and Florida and know it works there (we didn't even
research the law books in those states before acting) and we have to assume
it will work nationally as the corporation veil encompasses every nook and
cranny of the nation. For this very reason, we can't see where a general
withdrawal from their jurisdiction is possible. Every case must be decided
on its own until there are enough of us, and locations, to make the
corporate masters accept the fact that they can't fight it. Please read the two sections from the Louisiana Civil Codes, and the Louisiana
Revised Statutes below carefully; dissect them word by word and the message will
come out loud and clear. Civil Codes of Louisiana - Art. 445. The statutes
and regulations which corporations enact for their police and discipline,
are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound to obey them,
provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the laws, to public
liberty, or to the interest of others. Louisiana Revised Statutes - Art. 429.
Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before
On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the
incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the
defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit
specifically denying the existence of such corporation.
These two simple paragraphs say it all. If one is a member of a corporation
he is bound by corporate rules and regulations, and those outside those
corporations are not subject to their jurisdiction. The corporate status
of an individual entering the court is automatically assumed by the court
unless they have notice to counter such assumptions, and this is the purpose
of the affidavit, an example of which I will provide below. All of the socialistic programs, integration of the races, the grab of power at
all echelons of government, and all the other ills of this nation are corporate
"enterprises." One cannot escape the thumb of corporate authority until such
time as he has removed himself from the jurisdiction. We can view government
today as a corporate reality, where the Constitution is merely a by-word, or
ruse of fiction, where the Congress is the board of governors, the President
is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" are mere corporate arbitration
boards, including the U.S. Supreme Court. When we pierce the corporate veil
and remove ourselves from that corrupt venture we become men again and carry
with us our natural laws and sovereignty, from whence the corporations
received their powers originally. The corporations of which we are primarily
DEPARTMENTS WHERE THEY EXIST. I will provide here a scenario and a sample of affidavit to control
the final disposition of the case involved: John Preston Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama cop by the
name of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal
procedures of checking drivers license, insurance, etc., Henly gives Hickman
a ticket with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does
it right by not arguing with the cop and doing as he has been told by the
officer, accepting the ticket and even signing it as ordered by the cop.
Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit which reads something
like this: Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence
I, John Preston: Hickman, a living, breathing man, declare in my own handwriting
that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief:
I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF
COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY. If any man or woman desiring to answer
this affidavit, please answer in the manner of this affidavit, with
notarized affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature, and
mail to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) days or
default will be obtained. John Preston: Hickman On the 25th day of May, 2000
a.d., a man who identified himself as John Preston Hickman appeared before
me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his
signature. Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public 1423 Fairmon Drive Tarrant City,
Alabama 35217 Four copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten;
one copy forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time
to give them five days to respond. Thirty minutes before you enter the
court, take the remaining three copies, filing one in their court and having
the clerk stamp the other two and giving one to the prosecutor. Keep the
remaining copy with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not
received their copies. The way it has gone for us in like situations here,
when the "defendant's" name is called, he stands and answers and the judge
will look to the prosecutor and ask him the anticipated action of the
charges. The prosecutor (speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is
lacking for prosecution, or something in that manner, and the judge
dismisses the case. This system has worked in many such cases, including a
state tax case, where the state was required to return the money taken from
the bank accounts of a husband and wife with the tax "debt" being cleared
from the records. I have used it, personally, to place a $150,000.00 lien
against a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama which has been there for several
years. He brought suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. Of course I never answered his frivolous suit because I had already
identified myself as a living man and not one of his fictions. I used the
affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges for their social
engineering and a couple of other minor purposes; all were stopped cold. The
amount of wins in this area with no losses convinces us that this procedure
set up in 1925 by the State Legislature of Louisiana is a very valid process
and should be effective for any and all reasons against any corporation,
public or private, within the United States. "Tax Liens" are official legal
charges against an individual and the affidavit works there also. Remember that the IRS is a corporation unto itself and even though it is not
directly connected to the U.S. Government, the fact that it operates within this
nation makes it liable to the affidavit. If a bank, for any reason, gives
your money to those whose signatures are not on the bank card, they are
committing a crime and the person giving that money to the IRS, the State,
or anyone else is personally responsible to the depositor and an affidavit
to that bank should result in the immediate redeposit of those funds. Your
deposit in a bank is a "bailment" and while no fiduciary relationship is
created by this bailment (because it is of the bank in general and not an
individual) your signature card reflects the only authority for the
disposition of your "money." As was shown recently, an affidavit, notifying
the bank that the depositor was not a part of their or any other
corporation, and that the one signing a check to the State Tax Division was
responsible for the depositor's money and not the depositors themselves,
since their signatures appeared on no part of the transaction, and the bank
had to recall the checks, the tax "debt" was cleared, and all money was
redeposited into the accounts of the husband and wife, who had separate
banks and accounts. Powerful stuff, these affidavits, and those writing the
laws back in 1925 knew what they were doing. One man was hesitant to use
this system because "judges just walk all over those who challenge their
jurisdiction." Well, with the affidavit we most certainly are challenging
their jurisdiction, but not in general. Any rebuttal at all is challenging
their jurisdiction, and that is what it is all about. What we need to get straight right off is the fact that they DO have
jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can
bring non-corporate citizens into that jurisdiction (which is exactly what
they have done through fraud). All we are doing with the affidavit is merely
showing them that their assumptions that "all men are a part of their scheme"
are very wrong, and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be
wrong. Corporations, even though they are "legal" fictions, are still businesses;
businesses are commercial enterprises, and commercial enterprises are
controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Judges will tell you
differently and they will be wrong. Corporations are established by the
State, whether Federal or otherwise, (government is State) and all States of
the Union have accepted the UCC (which originally was established for the
District of Columbia, if my information is correct). The UCC is a complicated mass of business jargon to the casual reader, but
in reality our rights are contained in the pages of those documents.
Our right to contract, fair play in contracts, business, and all other aspects
of human commerce activities are covered in the UCC. While man, especially the Christian man, is born with the common law in his heart,
the English common law was derived from commerce and commercial law itself.
On the middle ages, open "fairs," or trading centers were set up in England
(and most likely in all other countries of Europe) where people could bring
their produce and goods to sell. People would come from all areas of Europe
to attend these fairs, or trading centers, and of course squabbling was rampant
and constant, so Courts of Arbitration were established to settle these arguments,
and render the exact law on any subject. These courts were called
"Pied Powder Courts" because, it is said, that the courts settled arguments
before the dust of the well trampled ground could settle on their feet. If I remember correctly, admiralty and maritime law was derived from this court,
and separation was made between law of the sea and law of the land which was
included in our Constitution. For a judge to say that he isn't affected by
commercial law, or the UCC, is hogwash. I ask them if they aren't under
commercial law - then why does it cost $150.00 to file a case with their
courts while we are paying taxes to support them. Of course, the answer is
evaded, and this is another story. # # #
Articles In This Thread AREN'T" WE GULLIBLE'S" EASY TO SWINDLE ??? (views: 330)
Questionnairy -- Monday, 6 October 2003, 11:33 a.m. debt elimination scarying off people (views: 319)
economica -- Monday, 6 October 2003, 11:56 a.m. debt elimination rip-offs? (views: 385)
economica -- Tuesday, 7 October 2003, 10:13 a.m. debt extermination costs: $2000-$3500 on up (views: 344)
economica -- Wednesday, 8 October 2003, 10:36 a.m. * PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEILS OF GOVERNMENT * (views: 1047)
hobie -- Monday, 6 October 2003, 6:17 p.m. HERE WE GO AGAIN..... (views: 1018)
SecuredParty -- Monday, 6 October 2003, 6:29 p.m. [ View Thread ] [ Return to Main Page ] [ Read Prev Article ] [ Read Next Article ] [ Bring 'em On! ] Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive is maintained by Forum Admin with WebBBS 5.12.

No comments: