United States v: United states of America

Dear Friends,
 
For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.
 
There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
either the "United States" or the "United States of America".
 
In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
one and the same.  In that Act of 1871, Congress also
expressly extended 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),
the Supreme Court wrote:
 
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/312/600.html
 
"We may say in passing that the argument that the
United States may be treated as a corporation
organized under its own laws, that is, under the
Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained
as not to merit serious consideration ."
 
 
Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
originated in 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
endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey
and receive property.  1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.
But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law."
 
Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
evidence that the "United States of America" are plural,
as implied by the plural term "States".  Also, the author
of that 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,
and it is NOT an Act of Congress.  Here, again,
be very wary of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence
of a proper Act of Congress.  See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the
statute defining the required enacting clause:
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
 
And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:
"no suit can be brought against the United States
without authority of law".  That statement is not only
correct;  it also provides another important clue:
Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States"
to sue 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
upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued,
as such.
 
Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term
"United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used
to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:
 
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States
of New 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,
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,
which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
 
[end excerpt]
 
 
When they came together the first time to form
a Union of several (plural) States, they decided
to call themselves the "United States of America".
 
Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
"United States of America" from "United States"
in Congress assembled.  The States formally
delegated certain powers to the federal government,
which is clearly identified in those Articles as the
"United States".
 
Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
refers to the federal government.
 
The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
in D.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
in correct contradistinction to "United States":
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
 
Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,
the consistent use of "United States" to refer to the federal
government carries enormous weight.  Title 28 is the latest word
on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law
on June 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,
the entity "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
incorporated twice 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 States Attorneys are now filing lawsuits and
prosecuting criminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]
but without 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
to represent Delaware corporations in federal courts;
Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so
and Congress never conferred any powers of attorney
on them to do so either.
 
Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented
by their respective State Attorneys General;  therefore,
U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent
any of 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
to attempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf
of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic].  And,
such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act
at 28 U.S.C. 530B:
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html
 
 
There are quite a few "activists" running around the Internet
claiming that the "United States" and the "United States of
America" are both corporations.  These claims are not correct,
for the reasons already stated above.
 
A similar error occurs when these so-called “activists” cite
the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only “proof”
that the “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
other entity 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
is limited to “this chapter” i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 –
Federal Debt Collection Procedures.  Overlooking the
limited scope of such definitions is a very common error
among many, if not all self-styled experts.  At best, this section
cannot be used as evidence that the federal government
should be treated as a valid corporation for all other intents
and purposes.  It takes a LOT more text than this one limited
definition to create any federal corporation!  Compare the
original Statutes at Large that created the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, for example.
 
Secondly, from the evidence above it should already
be clear that the “United States” (federal government)
is not 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
an existing corporation when Congress enacted
section 3002, that statute did not create and could
not have created the United States as a federal
corporation in the first instance.
 
Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court
told Congress that it was barred from re-defining
any terms that are used in the federal Constitution.
“United States” occurs in several places, because it is central
to the entire purpose of that Constitution.  Therefore,
the legislative attempt to re-define “United States” at
section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because
it violates the Eisner Prohibition.
 
Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,
which render it null and void for vagueness.  Here they are,
in case 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
the term being defined in any definition of that term, and such a
violation has clearly happened here.  If you don’t yet recognize
the tautologies, then change one part of this definition to read:
 
The term “United States” here also embraces any instrumentality
of the federal government.
 
At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and
removes the vagueness.  Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define
the term “United States” still violates the Eisner Prohibition.
 
For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some
of the 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
Source