BUSINESS-AS-USUAL STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING "THE CROWN" INVESTORS and their GLOBAL ANONYMITY

In the beginning "The Crown", a "corporation sole" established investment interests in the American colonies.

Origins - The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system, evolving from and synthesising oriental and barbarian concepts of kingship. Under the feudal system, in England and (separately) Scotland, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the ruler (though this was not the case in all countries that had this system). All land was granted by the Crown to lords, in exchange for feudal services, and they in turn granted the land to lesser lords. One exception to this was common socage—owners of land held as socage held it subject only to the Crown. The Crown as ultimate owner of all property also owns any property which has become bona vacantia.

When a relative few of the early colonist declared their independence, the investors didn't argue, the investors compromised. The investors put their hirelings in places whereby they could promulgate and enact the laws upon which their statutorily established courts would act (see History 1450-1789: Navigation Acts). The following is an example of how corporate governance would be "statutorily" erected as a "Crown Entity" within a commonwealth (or anyplace within these united states of America "by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress" - see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). The example that follows shows that corporate governance was erected in the capitol city of Kingston, Jamaica, in 1803.

The erection of a corporate UNITED STATES (see: U.S.C. Title 28 § 3002 (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) and all its appellations therefrom appears to have started with the incorporation of Philadelphia on March 11, 1789 (Recorded L. B. No. 3, p. 455 See the Acts of Assembly passed December 9, 1789, Chapter 1479; April 2, 1790, Chapter 1509; March 8, 1792, Chapter 1665;  April 19, 1794, Chapter 1754; April 4, 1796, Chapter 1905; April 11, 1799, Chapter 2091; March 3, 1800, Chapter 2117) and further confirmed by the "Gettysburg Address in 1864, and the Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts" (reorganized June 11, 1878 --16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62).  

"The Crown" has its Treasury", and "The Treasury" has its agenda for stakeholders in "Crown Entities".

What is a Crown Entity? - Crown entities are bodies established by law in which the Government has a controlling interest - for example, by owning a majority of the voting shares or through having the power to appoint and replace a majority of the governing members - but which are legally separate from the Crown.
Section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 outlines the five categories of Crown entity:
Statutory entities - bodies corporate established through legislation;
Crown entity companies - often previously known as Crown-owned companies;
Crown entity subsidiaries - companies that are controlled by Crown entities;
School boards of trustees - as constituted under the Education Act 1989; and
Tertiary education institutes - polytechnics, universities and wananga.

Treasury hirelings develop rhetoric and protocol to assure the success of their global agenda.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Dealing With Political Exposure

View more presentations from Competitive enterprise Institute.

(Who is Competitive Enterprise?

Location: Washington, United States
Work: Policy Research Organization at Competitive Enterprise Institute
About: CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. )

So, if the agenda of "The Crown" and its "Treasury" is to protect and defend the financial interests and statutory schemes of its proprietary investors,

then who is representing our interests?

Who do we, the people, turn to to defend and protect our interests and investments?

See also:

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1 § 8, Clause 4. The Congress shall have Power * * * To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States - NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP, and

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Has the United States been re-venued into 'the crown's' feudalistic system of governance?

Lack of meaningful work and loss of property causes stress. And, long term stress can lead to serious health problems.

So; What form of government has the United States?

And, what is "the crown"?

(For a prophetic perspective on this subject, see also Isaiah 28 and, consider from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the double meaning of "crown".)

The SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; PONZI, TONTINE or LAWFUL INVESTMENT?

In 1932 school aged Americans learned about "The Magic Scrap of Paper" and their responsibilities as "stockholders" in what they perceived to be their lawful, constitutionally defined, Government. 

However, since 1932 much has changed.  "Lawful Money" is no longer lawful, and since 1994 the Social Security Administration has been operating as a wholly independent agency. 

So, what type of financial system had Democrat and Republican representatives during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration given the American people? 

A Ponzi system?

A Tontine system?

A system of lawful investments?

In the April 19, 1937 issue of The Scranton Times (archives, page 16) was the following article that explains the issuance of "bonds":

FEDERAL RESERVE HIT IN TALK BY LAMNECK

Washington, April 19 - Representative Lamneck (D Ohio) told the house today the federal reserve system is committing legally "the greatest burglary in history."

Critizing the system in the midst of a plea that the budget be balanced to avert "calamity," the Ohioan said that for a $300 investment a bank could get a $30,000 return."

If a burglar had a license to steal, he said, "he would at least have to carry away his loot. The federal reserve system has its loot brought to it."Lamneck said this was a procedure for a "steal" authorized by congress.

The treasury asks bids for several million dollars worth of bonds. A banker says he will take a million dollars worth and credits the treasury on his books with a million dollars.

Then he deposits the bonds with a federal reserve agent as collateral security for a million dollars in federal reserve notes and agrees to pay the cost of printing the currency - about $300.

He now has a million dollars in currency to balance the million dollar deposit he credited to the treasury.

He still owns the bonds and can collect the interest, about $20,000 a year on an investment of $300.

Further, in April 2009, speaking before the National Press Club in Washington D.C., here's what Dominique Strauss-Kahn said as he spoke on behalf of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  In his talk, Mr. Strauss-Kahn responded to questions from the audience.  Of particular interest to all Americans (in my opinion) is his offer, just past the 33 minute point of his talk, " . . . OF BONDS WHICH WILL BE BONDS IN THE IMF CURRENCY . . . .

If you take the time to watch Dominique Strauss-Kahn's entire 'question and answer' session (from about the 30 minute point on) you may begin to understand why, in 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, Pennsylvania legislators promulgated "an ACT to prevent the erecting any new and independent state within the limits of this commonwealth".

What do you think?

Has the United States been re-venued into 'the crown's' feudalistic system of governance by an oligarchy of plutocrats using Ponzi and Tontine investment schemes?

If it has, is this "Ok" with you?  Is this what you want for your descendents?

It's up to every American to decide on an honorable method of investing in the future of our nation and to make the necessary changes as they are willing and able.

Is it the fictional NGO "ACORN" or is it prominent legislative and judicial family members who influence a matrix of corruption in Pa government?

Here's another way of looking at Senator Casey's support of ACORN and his influence in the matrix of judicial corruption in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. (Updated 10/19/2009)

Click on http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423950217 to link to the August 21, 2008 Pa. Courts Pursuing Conciliation for Foreclosures post by Amaris Elliott-Engel at Pennsylvania Law Weekly to see how the legislative Casey and judicial Munley families continue to promulgate influence and legislation in order to adjudicate protections and defenses for owners of global banks and the controversial Non-Governmental Organization, ACORN.

In Lackawanna County, since - at least - the time Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, it seems to have been a common practice for these prominent families (i.e., the legislative Casey and the judicial Munley) to collude in seditious activities that broker the men and women of our nation into Thirteenth Amendment 're-constructed' statutory “servitude” to a corporate jurisdiction. Their backroom dealings have been without “full disclosure” of the adhesive and unconscionable natures of what I consider to be treasonous contracts that have allowed a statutory governance to be erected within the parameters of our intended form of government.

One example of how this contractual 'revenuing' (no pun intended) into a foreign corporate jurisdiction is being done, had been previously posted. In that example I ask: "BONDS": Are they UNCONSCIONABLE, IN VIOLATION of RICO STATUTES, or TREASON? and give an example of how we, American men and women who believe our selves to be free, have been "ceded" by legislative brokers into a type of corporate feudalism under what appears to be the same "Crown" business-as-usual enterprise system of governance that colonized the "new world" in the 17th Century on behalf of its investors.

So, again I bring your attention to Harrisburg Bureau Chief, Robert Swift’s December 3, 2008 article wherein he quotes Pennsylvania Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116 as saying; “Integrity is built in the DNA of the Casey family” and ask you, the reader to look past the wordsmiths’ rhetoric and decide for your self whether “integrity” can be for good or for evil.

Check out the facts and become an informed electorate.

Should the corporate United States and the State of Pennsylvania be dissolved?

UNITED STATES CODE provides the legal definition of "State" and "United States" in 28USC3002:

(14) ``State'' means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(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.

On page 31 of "CURRENT EVENTS", the "Condensed Weekly Newspapers that were used by Teachers in Public and Private Schools" during the 1932 - 1933 school term indoctrinated future generations of Americans to accept a corporate business model of governance.

Because anything other than full disclosure of the nature of a contract is illegal, fraudulent and unethical; and the etiology of a corporate structure of governance had not been fully disclosed (see BUSINESS-AS-USUAL STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING "THE CROWN" INVESTORS and their GLOBAL ANONYMITY) to its share and stock holders; and the acts of its directors and those in control have become illegal, oppressive and fraudulent; and, its assets have been misapplied and wasted, should not the corporation’s unhappy stock/shareholders have recourse to dissolution?

From 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1981:

(a) General rule.--Upon application filed by a shareholder or director of a business corporation, the court may entertain proceedings for the involuntary winding up and dissolution of the corporation when any one of the following is made to appear:

(1) The acts of the directors, or those in control of the corporation, are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent and that it is beneficial to the interests of the shareholders that the corporation be wound up and dissolved.

(2) The corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted and that it is beneficial to the interests of the shareholders that the corporation be wound up and dissolved.

(3) The directors are deadlocked in the direction of the management of the business and affairs of the corporation and the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock and that irreparable injury to the corporation is being suffered or is threatened by reason thereof. The court shall not appoint a receiver or grant other similar relief under this paragraph if the shareholders by agreement or otherwise have provided for the appointment of a provisional director or other means for the resolution of a deadlock but the court shall enforce the remedy so provided if appropriate.

Should the corporate United States and the State of Pennsylvania be dissolved? Here are examples of how some shareholders view the management of the business affairs of these 28 USC 3002 corporations.

REPUBLICANS

DEMOCRATS