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://laws.findlaw.com/us/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,