by Randy Mauganswith contributions from Keith Hansen (a/k/a “Vyzygoth”)
Presented in four parts:
Paul Collins, of the Collins Brothers, plays a set-up scenario, and accuses Vyzygoth, Gordon Comstock, and myself of “not checking sources”. To wit we respond—with sources—and some corrections on the dishonest assertions:
Paul Collins responded to my corrections with what one could only call “the accepted consensus” of this alleged myth of USA Incorporated. I really expected better given the Collins’ perceived image as investigtors into “deep conspiracy”:
Let me try to give you a blow-by-blow explanation for my comment at your site:
1. I’m glad you asked for I citation (even if your tone is somewhat imperious). I source everything in an article, and I am prepared to provide a citation whenever asked.
If you go to Cornell University’s U.S. Code Collection, you will find that several things fall under the category of person.
Title 28>Part VI> Chapter 176> Subchapter A> 3002 states the folling concerning the term “person”:
“Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
You can check it out for yourself here:
So can you see how a “person” is not exclusively a legal fiction? Legal persons and natural persons are, therefore, not separate when you’re dealing with a case of representation for a actual human being in court.
2. In Constitutional Law class back during my college days, I learned that there is a clear line of distinction between having a corporation and existing as one. The corporate status is strictly invoked when the United States needs to be represented in court. How else are you supposed to represent such an entity? Is it practical to summon every man, women, and child in America into court? Of course not.
So, if you choose to understand the corporate status in its legitimate context, you will see that it merely exist for the sake of practicality. Would you rather try to crowd everyone into a courtroom?
Notice the definition you sent me. It shows that the United States is not defined exclusively as a corporation. It’s also agencies, boards, and instrumentalities and operates as such when they occasion calls for it. It does not exclusively operate as a corporation. It merely acts as one in a court of law when the situation necessitates it.
3. Elvick is not a tar baby. He is, so far as I can tell, the originator of these ideas. He is the earliest source I was able to genetically trace that espoused these idea. I did not say the Vyz, Comstock, or yourself received these ideas directly from Elvick’s writings (that was not even implied), but the myth he created has been disseminated on the popular level and has found its way into the works of other authors (some of whom, present the idea as their own). If you’re reading patriot literature, which Vyz frequently does, then you’re bound to run into the idea eventually.
I have no doubt that all three of you are well-meaning, but you are terribly misguided on this issue. Ask yourself about the origins of what you believe. Where did you first run into these ideas. I can guarantee it did not happen while you were nonchalantly skimming through case law and statutes one day. Where did you first read this stuff? What do you think the author’s agenda was/is?
…I thought listeners should also know that there are problems with the theory being presented and that they shouldn’t subscribe to the idea blindly.
So far as I can tell, though, you have two decisions before you: You can carefully analyze everything that comes across your desk and provide people with info that can be verified, or you can believe it all and get laughed to scorn when the straw men you adopt get knocked over.
Paul Collins’ complete rationale for asking our listeners (who are really not known for “subscribing to ideas blindly”) to challenge the statements and sources, cited many times on all of our shows, lies in:A citation of the Federal court statutes, which scrupulously avoid the term, legal fiction, in favor of the self-defining (and oblique) definition of a “person.” A definition, I will add, that has roots in the earliest forms of racism and de-humanization found in the annals of American history (more on that in the next part.)
And the opinion of a college Constitutional Law professor, speaking in the broad abstraction of theoretical law. As we shall see in the next part, the Constitution is not the source in question, not is it the great matrix of justice so invoked by many. In fact, our statements on the show, and many like it, are that the Constitution is both a corrupt, misleading document; and relic, long ago supplanted by other forms of law which abrogated the perceived rights of individual citizens, in favor of the states.