Is the United States a for-profit corporation?

A popular theory is that the United States is a for-profit corporation similar to McDonald's. A variety of arguments are used to try to support this claim. We intend to investigate those arguments, but first we need to get some fundamentals out of the way.

What is a country? What is a corporation?

A country, or nation-state, is a "public body corporate", a lawful entity consisting of various members. Countries are not incorporated with any superior entity – they are sovereign, answerable only to the political, economic and military force of other nations who dare oppose. In general, nations voluntarily follow principles of public international law in the interest of peace, order and mutual benefit.

A standard corporation, on the other hand, similarly consists of various members but is incorporated into, under and subject to a nation-state or state and its laws. The nature and necessity of such corporations is explored at length in Blackstone's Commentaries: Of Corporations.

People, men and women, human beings, whether citizens or not are not considered corporations under law, but natural persons. It is not possible to appear in law individually except as a natural person.

What is the United States?

The United States is a sovereign state with the Constitution as the foundational document and supreme law of the land. The United States entity, the same you see as a party in court cases, etc., was created implicitly by the Constitution. The United States is the highest entity that exists or can exist in the United States. The United States itself is not a standard corporation incorporated under any nation's laws (or its own), however the US may form and make use of various standard corporations internally.

Now that we're done with the formalities, let's debunk some pseudo-legal claims!

28 USC § 3002 Definition

The following definition is often claimed to be proof-positive that the United States is a corporation:

(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.

First we need to understand the basics of statutory word definition. If you read the top of the section carefully you will see the words "As used in this chapter". That means those definitions only apply within that chapter of the USC, which we see here. At a glance it covers about 124 sections out of many thousand in the USC. Moreover, the definitions only apply in federal proceedings that fall under that chapter. The same definition does not apply and is not used anywhere else.

So yes, for the purposes of that chapter, United States is defined as a Federal corporation. This argument is busted based on the scope of the definition alone – clearly something that applies in just one chapter of federal code can't override the entire nation. We can look further, though, to find the exact intent and reasoning behind the particular definition. From the description of the chapter we see it's related to federal debt collection procedure, which is a start.

How can we quickly find out more? We can search Google Scholar to see what the courts say. Clicking the first case and checking footnotes 8 and 9 sheds much light on the topic. Apparently the definition is related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the intent is to limit the application to dealings with federal entities.

In passing the FDCPA, Congress evinced a clear intent to exclude private transactions — debts created under (and thus governed by) state law, and to which the United States was not an original party.

That explains that!

The District of Columbia

Some believe that the creation of a municipal or state-style government subject to Congress in the District of Columbia somehow changed the government and made everything, including the Constitution (the supreme law of the land, remember) subject to that corporation. This would be quite impossible and makes no sense. The created cannot supersede its creator. No legislation from Congress, no ruling from the Supreme Court, no Executive Order can destroy or replace the Constitution or the United States.

Where do the profits go?

Revenue collected by the United States is managed by the United States Department of the Treasury which has a number of responsibilities. Collected monies remain in the Treasury for use within the nation. Money cannot be removed except in accordance with US law under the Constitutional framework.

What say you? Do you think the United States is a "for-profit corporation"?

  • NoS

    28 USC Chapter 176 is about federal debt collection procedures for civil courts.

    28 USC 3001
    "(a)In
    General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the [1] chapter provides
    the exclusive civil procedures for the United States—
    (1) to recover a judgment on a debt; or
    (2) to obtain, before judgment on a claim for a debt, a remedy in connection with such claim."

    28 USC 3002 [definitions]
    "(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."

    It means what organizations may sue to collect a debt owed to the US.

    To
    just use 3002(15)(A) in isolation is to mislead people into thinking
    that the US was simply a corporation. It isn't, it never has been.

  • Jody Annan
    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Fun video, but you've missed the part where the United States Corporation Company is not even slightly related to central banking or the government of the USA. It's a private company that chose "United States Corporation Company" as its name. The descriptions you read out of their Articles of Incorporation may sound sinister, but they are entirely consistent with their stated business, which is acting as an agent for other businesses. Look up "registered agent" to see what they do. It isn't even a federal corporation, because it hasn't been incorporated by Congress. It's a private company doing business separately in (almost?) every state, which seems to have changed its name to Corporation Services Company. This whole video is a laugh and a half.

      • Jody Annan

        Obviously you don't understand the beginnings of the fraud being perpetrated in the U.S. of course they are not related to the central banking cartel , that is a separate entity altogether , The federal reserve is owned by the Rothschilds and their cronies ,of which the FBI (federal ) was originally set up to protect the interest of . .The whole point is our government IS A private corporation posing as a government .Almost every town you drive into has a sign telling you when they were incorporated , they are merely sub corporations of " Big Brother " .. Look into it , being a corporation make you subject to the coporate rules of the state . It is amazing to me how someone can be presented with the evidence and still gloss over the truth from a mind controlled perspective .You deny the fact that The United States Corporation , is a privately owned corporation acting as your government .Read this article, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/the-worlds-goldkeeper the reason other countries rely on the federal reserve to hold their gold is they are all under the control of the same private company . You still don't think so ? Here Alan Greenspan , in this short videohttp://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Alan+Greenspan+Quotes&&view=detail&mid=A0B57D8EE62A380335BEA0B57D8EE62A380335BE&FORM=VRDGAR , tells you the Federal reserve is a separate entity .If the federal reserve was a government agency senate would bot need to pass a bill to audit them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNuHRyip3iA .

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Your original post shows me that you don't know the difference between a private corporation and the corporate nature of a government. This one shows me that you've fallen for every conspiracy theory you've ever read, and probably blame the Illuminati every time two leaves fall at the same time.

          Do you actually have any evidence for any of these claims, or just more assertions that completely ordinary facts can only be explained by goofy theories? I've already addressed here why governments must necessarily be incorporated, and I'll explain it again here:

          The fact that governments are incorporated does not mean that they are commercial entities, that they operate under secret rules, that they are run by Reptilian executives trading it on the intergalactic stock exchange (clearly orchestrated by the Space Jews), that the collateral is people, or that you've discovered some ghastly secret they're trying to conceal from the world. Governments are incorporated. They're corporations. Bingo A-1 Yuppers, they're corporations, and that beats the hell out of the alternative. In the context of the English language and our understanding of entities in law for the last few centuries, almost any kind of government you can imagine must be a corporation. Here's why:

          A state (with the exception of horrifying monarchies where the entire state is the personal property of an individual) is not a natural person. It has no parents, it has no signature, it has no body. The world can be a harsh place if you don't have a body. You can't walk into a bank and open an account, you can't walk into a courthouse to sue or be sued, you can't discuss the terms of a contract and agree to it, you can't do much of anything. Bodies are important things. The word "incorporation" is related to these crucial bodies, through the Latin word "corpus," which simply means body. The term incorporation refers to the creation of a legal entity without a body. By "incorporating," we all agree to give it a fictional body and to accept its ability to exist in law through representatives and agents. For the federal and state governments of the United States, this incorporation was performed with the adoption of constitutions. These constitutions don't mention the word "corporation" or "incorporate," because they don't need to. It's simply a consequence of creating a government that 1) is not synonymous with an individual and 2) exists as a legal entity. It's very important for governments to be legal entities, because otherwise it would be impossible for them to sue or be sued, it would be impossible
          for them to have accounts and pay into or out of them, it would be impossible for them to employ agents and officers to administer the business of government, and it would be impossible for them to enter contracts.

          This winds up giving you three choices. Which of the following do you prefer?

          1. A government that doesn't exist in law

          2. A government run as a sole proprietorship where taxes are paid directly to the head of state's personal bank account

          3. A government run as a corporation

          • Jody Annan

            Actualy none of the above , it is not that simple and it depends upon what level of government you are talking about .Until Dun and Bradstreet closed its site to the general public , you could look up the Duns number of any court in the country . Let me tell you Dun and Bradstreet ratings are all about how much profit a company is turning .The truth is the government is being run so private companies of its constituents are making huge profits . Take Dick Cheneys company Haliburton and the Iraq war . The war was run on a no bid basis , with Cheneys company getting the contract , while he was active as Vice President . There are eye witness accounts of Haliburton s http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6028 Brown and Root division running convoys of empty trucks through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq and billing the government by the mile , and the american taxpayers footing the bill !You could also look into the fact that Harry Rieds land trust owns land all around the now notorious Bundy ranch . And reports that his trust has acquired much land in the American west , and looking into the files on many of the deals there is no record of the transactions just the transfer of the title which should only be if a married woman inherited land from her father .I notice not one comment on evidence of the fed being a private company , I take it you acquiesce .

          • pseudolaw.com

            The vast majority of profits of the Fed are returned to the national treasury, because it's a public institution: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/federal-reserve-made-47-4-billion-in-2009/
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/business/economy/fed-transferred-79-6-billion-in-earnings-to-the-treasury-last-year.html
            "the Fed’s enormous investment campaign to stimulate economic growth continued to generate windfall profits for taxpayers"

          • Jody Annan

            What the shill media outlet The Times is not telling you is the Fed normally charges interest on the money it loans out . If this were not the case , why would the treasury continually go into debt by selling treasury bonds to foreign entities such as china ? The press is not giving you the full story which is typical of them .http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm The U.S. went some 400 billion into debt just on the interest due in 2015 , something is not adding up . The Times tells you the Fed had a 100 billion in profit , yet the government , by its own admission ,owes 400 billion just in interest on its debt !

          • Jody Annan

            75 Congressional Record 12595-12603 " The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned , locally controlled corporations " Lewis v U.S., 680 F2d 1239,1241 (1982)

            " From a legal standpoint these banks are private corporations ,organized under a special act of Congress , namely , The Federal Reserve Act .They are not in the strict sense of the word , ' Government Banks ' " = William P.G. Harding ,Governer of the Federal Reserve Board .( 1921)
            Source " Fruit From A Poisonous Tree " Melvin Stamper JD pg 99
            " Give me control of a nations money , and I care not who makes its laws " Mayer Amstel Rothschild

          • Jody Annan

            It has gotten quiet around here ! I was thinking of you guys this morning as I was reading these . Just to open you eyes a bit further .

            "The United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act… and declared [so] by President Roosevelt… H.J.R. 192… dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only." U. S. Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303.

            United States Code TITLE 28 § 3002 (15) "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation

            The United States "…is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War." Republica v. Sween.

            The International Organization Immunities Act of 1945 placed all courts under the jurisdiction of the United Nations (reference Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations with Oaths of Office under section 92.12 and 92.31). Under Title 8 USC 1481all oath takers (judges, law enforcement officers, etc.) voluntarily forfeit their citizenship via the Oath of Office thus becoming foreign agents and are required to register under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (though they never do).

            All federal and state elected officials, appointed administrators, federal police, sheriffs and judges receive their paychecks through OPM, the Office of Personnel Management. OPM is owned by the International Monetary Fund, which is owned by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their Banking Empires, which is treason , under the Constitution .

            "Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…" Congress, 1973. "When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution…" Congressman Beck, Congressional Record,1933. Currently, permanent state of national emergency. 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977; See: Executive Order 12919

            The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under NO obligation to protect anyone.

            "neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service." California Government Code, § 845

            "police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything." Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)

            It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sappv. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

            "As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. . . . Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371

            .

          • pseudolaw.com

            So you found a lot of misrepresented, plainly false, out-of-context and inapplicable nonsense on the internet – so what? I don't have time to debunk it all right now, but it wouldn't be hard.

          • lolknee✓ᴺᶦʰˡᶦˢᵗ

            Out of context is right. This is exactly why Scalia didn't want to televise the SC.
            Same people who don't understand the context of terms or words or even entire ideas being narrowly defined into a chapter or section of the law and think it will hold true across the board.

            The problem is that very sad people who desire to feel like special snow flakes go online and find something that feeds their confirmation bias. They are not particularly bright in the first place and get stuck on the snippets they are fed. Then fight like the devil to maintain some insane conspiracy theory because it props up their belief that they are not just insufferable morons.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            There's nothing wrong with having questions and grave concerns about the structure of government, but these citations don't mean what they've been purported to mean. I don't have access to a computer right now, but I will try to properly address these quotations for you soon. In the meantime, I recommend looking for context that will explain what they really mean. For instance, 26 USC 3002 (15)(A) is limited strictly to one chapter about debt collection, and refers to corporations chartered by Congress, such as FDIC and Amtrak. Court decisions have found that police have no specific duty to particular individuals, except in limited circumstances. All this does is prevent police departments from being civilly liable every time they aren't able to prevent, stop, or solve a crime. I've already addressed the Clearfield decision in another comment, but the text of the opinion makes it clear that its meaning is to hold the federal government to the same commercial laws as everybody else, not to degrade its sovereignty. Douglas made this clear in the opinion. As for the Congressional Record, it includes hyperbole and rhetoric that has no legal meaning. If a Senator today accuses President Obama of being a space alien, this goes in the Congressional Record. It doesn't make it true or law.

          • Jody Annan

            None of the Above , it is not that simple . Until a short while ago , anyone could go on the Dun and Bradstreet site and look up the Duns number of any court in the country . Dun and Bradstreet and their rating system is all about the profits and solvency of private for profit corporations.. This country is being run so its constituents in government are making huge profits fleecing the general public taxpayers .. Case in point the Iraq war . Bush in his autobiography states it was Cheney who compelled him to go to war. Cheneys company wins the No bid contracts while he is ( vice ) president , with the taxpayers footing the bill . There are eyewitness reports of Haliburton/Brown and Root , running convoys of empty trucks through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq and billing the government by the mile ! So the American people were some 3 trillion $ in debt when Bush left office !You have Susan Ignanni , the top insurance lobbyist writing most of the Affordable Care Act ( tax) , forcing all americans into the insurance Ponzi system ,again with the individual taxpayers paying huge penalties , fines up to $2,200 .00 for not complying with the Affordable Care Tax , You have Michael Taylor former attorney ( and lobbyist ) for Monsanto , being appointed as the head consultant for the FDA . No wonder we cannot get GMO'S labeled .reports have it Obama signed a bill making Monsanto immune from lawsuits . Look into the Harry Ried land trust ,owning acres of land all around the now infamous Bundy ranch , you think that is a coincidence , with many of the transfers of title showing no records of the transactions ?

          • pseudolaw.com

            Some posts must be manually approved. Thanks for your patience.

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            "Dun and Bradstreet and their rating system is all about the profits and solvency of private for profit corporations"

            This is false. Dun & Bradstreet rate any entity that borrows or wants a credit rating. This includes states, municipalities, agencies, non-profits, and so on. Even governments get rated on creditworthiness. As for the rest, you're describing corruption and regulatory capture, which are both serious problems. They don't require or suggest a privately-owned, for-profit government.

        • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

          Your original post shows me that you don't know the difference between a private corporation and the corporate nature of a government. This one shows me that you've fallen for every conspiracy theory you've ever read, and probably blame the Illuminati every time two leaves fall at the same time.

          Do you actually have any evidence for any of these claims, or just more assertions that completely ordinary facts can only be explained by goofy theories?

          Also, do you at least realize that the United States Corporation Company has nothing to do with the United States' federal government? From the very video you showed me, it can be seen that it's just an ordinary company that provides business services to other ordinary companies as a registered agent.

          • Jody Annan

            Sorry but I do not speak SHEEPISTANY , your ability to write without actualy saying anything shows you are either brainwashed by your public schooling or you are a shill and part of the problem . It is common sense if the fed answers to no one , and it takes an act of congress to audit the fed , which they have been unable to produce , then they are separate and out of reach of the government . The article above states the treasury is acting within the confines of the constitution , have you read it ? under the constitution it is unlawfull to create a system of payment of debt with anything other than gold or silver coin . article 1 section 10 expressly forbids the use of notes , look in your pocket , what you are erroneously calling money, is FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ,they are telling you on the instrument what the instrument is . . Notes are not money but a promise to pay in the future . Money in blacks law dictionary .Money ;" in usual and ordinary acceptations it means gold silver or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange , and does not embrace notes …" Blacks law 4th edition pg 1157 .President Kennedy passed executive order 11110 to do away with the federal reserve and had already began the printing of " Silver Certificates " , that is paper money backed by and redeemable in silver .The evidence is everywhere if one has the ability to see beyond their media created sheep colored glasses . There are books written on when the private fed took over, and its effect on this this country , one that comes to mind is " The Creature From Jekyll Island " a simple question , if you own a business , do you need permission from anyone or an act of congress to audit the books of that business ?

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            Ah, so you don't read English. OK.

          • Jody Annan

            If you truly want proof as you claim , here is a list of 21 books , including " The creature from Jekyll Island" I recommended above , This is not my compilation , but if you are truly seeking the truth , and not just a choir to preach to ! .Just reading the descriptive paragraphs under each titled book should give you cause for concern . http://www.activistpost.com/2011/08/21-books-ruling-elite-doesnt-want-you.html

          • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

            You started off at the point in that video specifically claiming that a private company in Florida has some unsavory connection to the federal government. That's the claim I'm talking about.

        • pseudolaw.com

          The Federal Reserve was created by the Federal Reserve Act and therefore remains subject to the Congress that created it. There is no Creature from Jekyll Island – you can verify the votes of hundreds of congressmen for yourself. As seems to be the trend, record profits were recently transferred to the national treasury. In fact, the Fed is unhappy because this year Congress also decided to tap into their surplus operating capital to fund federal transportation projects: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-treasury-got-117b-fed-2015-193b-fund-federal-highway-bill-2260706. I plan to do an article about all this one of these days.

    • http://www.pseudolaw.com Ken S.

      Also, please be aware:

      Just because an agency, municipality, or other part of government has a Dun & Bradstreet number doesn't mean that it's a private corporation. You don't have to be a private corporation to get scored by D&B.

      28 USC 3002(15)(A) applies only to Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the US Code. That one chapter only deals with the collection of federal debt, and "federal corporation" in that section refers to federally-chartered corporations like Amtrak and the FDIC.

      27 CFR 72.11 applies only to Part 72 (DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY) of Chapter 1 (ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY) of Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms) of the Code of Federal Regulations. It does not alter the character of these offenses under criminal law, state or federal.

      Senate Report 93-549 was part of a debate about whether or not to remove the open-ended emergency powers that Congress granted the Presidency in 1933. It resulted in Public Law 94-412 which ended the 40+ year state of emergency, rescinded Presidential emergency powers, and restricted the scope and duration of future states of emergency.

      Contrary claims are made by people who are more interested in propping up their conspiracy theories with bogus and misleading citations than in actually learning what the law says and means. They are not actually interested in the truth.

  • Thumbtack Mike

    The United States is a very very very PROFITABLE corporation.

    • pseudolaw.com

      The US is not a typical corporation subject to another state or country's laws – it's a sovereign state recognized by nearly 200 other countries worldwide. Any profits stay in the public system for the benefit of all people on the territory.

  • guruurug

    America – bought and paid for by the King of England.

  • Joseph Diekhoff

    The psuedo legal interpretations on this website are no less vague than those of the sovereign citizen movement. Its obvious that the U.S. government makes no profit other than what it's employees benefit from i.e. politicians, government agents etc. and the salaries and benefits they pirate for themselves through the use of legal fictions. Otherwise, the country and all of its people have been technically bankrupt for years, otherwise we wouldn't have trillions in national debt, owed mostly to the federal reserve banking system, which produces all of our "NOT currency" and sells it off as debt with interest that has compounded into our national debt. This article makes its biggest mistake mentioning the U.S. Treasury…lol…it produces currency as collectors items but that is not the currency we use. Coming from an unbiased standpoint, this article fails to debunk the sovereign citizen legal/philosophical interpretation, as this article itself fails to deal in reality. Its obvious that sovereigns are going to be quickly rooted out and quickly squashed by a tyrannical system that they oppose, but that doesn't mean that psuedo legal half truths in their own right, as presented by this article effectively get us any closer to the truth about the system we live in.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Yes, the whole government is a legal fiction, and only deals in legal fiction, and unless you can defeat the police and military or otherwise resist the collective will of the people you too are held under the legal fictions they create and enforce.

      trillions in national debt, owed mostly to the federal reserve banking system

      Source? Consider this. Who created the Federal Reserve system? It was Congress, and not in some secret, underhanded meeting as conspiracists claim. Before the Federal Reserve Act came into force it was all over the newspapers. Where do the vast majority of the Fed's profits go? Back to the federal treasury for the benefit of all US citizens and subjects.

      This article is about the US not being a typical for-profit corporation incorporated under a state or national law, but a sovereign nation-state recognized under international law as having exclusive jurisdiction over the territory. Please try to stay on topic.

  • Pingback: The Vatican American Constitution | The Antipas Chronicles()

  • Oldmanlogic

    How does the Federal Reserve (private corporation) control/institute money? They are a private corporation. So their dealings are chartered and controlled by commerce and not common law courts. So in order to business w/ "United States" (whatever form you consider it) there must me rules and regulation, dicated by finance not common law. So there has to be a corporate entity labeled "United States".