Governments are corporations and people are products

Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

10580044_645172515589691_2523812402499522207_n

Nations and States, by their very structure are corporate entities, and are considered to be a single legal creature at law. They have a ‘body’ consisting of the citizens making up the group, and a ‘head’ consisting of the parliament or congress. They are juridical persons, able to sue and be sued, and possess certain rights and responsibilities under international law. This has been this way for centuries, the colonies themselves actually began as Chartered corporations, created by Royal Charter, and the Crown itself is a Corporation Sole.

gssftt-copy-3-copy-copy
Extract from “Government Contracts: Federal, State and Local”; By Nicholas Seddon

What governments are not, is “corporations” in the sense that the term is commonly used today, as in MacDonald’s, Kmart, or other trading companies registered with ASIC, (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) and subject to the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001. This comparison shows a flawed understanding of the nature of corporate entities, but is usually based in the premise that:

(1) because the police, courts, councils and various government departments have an ABN, (Australian Business Number) “….and this makes them a corporation.”

(2) because various governments are registered with the SEC (Security and Exchanges Commission) in the United States, “…and this makes them a privately owned American corporation.”

(1) Australian Business Number

Government departments having an ABN doesn’t make them a corporation. If any type of department has staff that they have to allocate wages, or have expenditure which they would be subject to GST, they require an ABN number to pay wages as well as gain an exemption from the GST surcharges under the “new tax system”. The Australian Business Number Act 1999 applies to a “government entity” AS IF it were an “entity”... In short, what is an “entity” for the purposes of the Australian Business Number Act 1999 “…may not be a separate legal entity for wider purposes”, as explained in Elston v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] FCA 108. The definition is intrinsic, applying only for the purposes of that particular Act, but not for the wider purposes, for example, of applying that definition to other Acts.

The Corporations Act 2001

In fact, when it comes to the actual definition of a “corporation” for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001, section 57A(2) states:

“Neither of the following is a corporation:

  • (a) an exempt public authority;
  • (b) a corporation sole.”

And section 3 states:

  • “exempt public authority” means a body corporate that is incorporated within Australia or an external Territory and is: a public authority; or an instrumentality or agency of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, in right of a State or in right of a Territory.”

(2) The US Security and Exchanges Commission

Similarly, the registrations of various bodies with the SEC in the US does not make them an American company. When the names of countries appear in EDGAR search results, it simply means that a foreign government that has issued securities for sale to U.S. investors, and has therefore registered those securities in accordance with the Securities Act 1933 and Securities Exchange Act 1934.

Extract from Braysich v The Queen [2009] WASCA 178

(At 25) “In the United States, federal regulation of securities transactions emerged from the ruins of the 1929 stock market crash.  The Securities Act 1933, 48 Stat 74, as amended, 15 USC chap 77a and following, was intended to provide investors with proper disclosure of material information in relation to public offerings of securities in commerce, to protect investors against fraud and to promote ethical standards of honesty and fair dealing.  The Securities Exchange Act 1934, 48 Stat 891, 15 USC chap 78j(b) was intended primarily to protect investors against manipulation of stock prices by regulating securities transactions and imposing regular reporting requirements on companies listed on national securities exchanges.  See Ernst & Ernst v Hochfelder (1976) 425 US 185, at 194 ‑ 195.”

There are very distinct differences between the type of SEC registration in comparison to an actual privately owned American company (Form 10-k U.S. Company) as well as a privately owned Australian company (Form 6-k Australian Company) and that of the Australian Government, (Form 18-k annual report foreign governments).

Read more here:  The Australian Government is NOT a foreign corporation registered with the U.S. S.E.C.

The Strawman

Another common misconception relating to corporate entities, is the notion that the type of legal personality that is held by individual people is a “corporation” or juridical person, known to OPCA adherents as the Strawman. OPCA theorists contend that a “natural person” is a unregistered “living man” whereas a birth certificate creates a juristic, artificial or fictitious person, or “corporation”.

This is simply impossible to maintain in law, as there are only two types of legal personality, (see Williams v. Hursey [1959] HCA 51; (1959), 103 CLR 30, at pp.51-3; 9 per Fullagar, J.: “Legal theory distinguishes between two kinds of legal persons-natural and legal…”

(1) A “juridical person” is the legal personality of a GROUP of individuals, (also called juristic, artificial or fictitious person) Groups such as corporations and bodies politic are treated by law as if they were persons, being capable of certain rights and duties.

(2) A “natural person” is the legal personality of ONE INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to a group of individuals, such as a juridical person, or “corporation”.

Juridical persons acquire their legal personhood when they are incorporated in accordance with law, whereas natural persons do so as soon as they have a separate and independent existence from their mother by birth

The application of a birth certificate DOES NOTHING to change this status to that of a “juridical person”. On the contrary, it is actually formal recognition of your status as a “natural person”. One could even register their name under the Corporations Act 2001, (Eg. Dick Smith, Harvey Norman) but the individual remains a natural person.

Read more here: The Fundamentals #1 Your Strawman is Indivisible 

 

Published