Posted by Two Cities on October 31, 1997 at 20:29:22:
In Reply to: Re: Corporation Sole posted by Common Right Group on October 31, 1997 at 16:41:18:
: : : : : Looking for any and all information Re: Corporation Sole.
: : : : : Thanks
: : : : RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 33.08.020:
: : : : Any individuals desiring to transact a business of an association
: : : : may, by complying with this chapter, become a body corporate for that purpose.
: : : : I don't understand it, but I think this is the place
: : : : where your name gets perverted in transactions with the government.
: : : : A body corporate CITIES, TWO is assigned by the issuer of the document.
: : : 1:we know as per [self v ray] you know RCW's are not laws.
: : : 2:we understand "may" can be used as "shall"
: : : 3:we understand the definition of "buisness" as being "in this state" or with it.
: : : yes/no?
: : : corporation soul is very old, and is in the jurisdiction of eclisiastical I belive.
: : 1: Yeah, I figured that one out. The law is that piece of paper signed and sealed
: : by either the Governor of Washington, or the Governor of the State of Washington,
: : as may be appropriate under whichever constitution.
: : 2: I'm still learning
: : 3: Perhaps you meant in this State. I only know of one state hereabouts. But I am curious.
: : Corporation soul? Tell more.
: Hmmmmmm. We think you may be on to something here. Just to prove we aren't so smart after all, we've fallen into the old trap of thinking "corporus fictus," "nom de guerre," and various other "stuff" respecting names spelled in all caps. Now, we know about corporation sole as an ecclesiastical term for ministers and bishops who act only in the name of their churches and are taken care of by the churches, but your question begs the question of: Is the state trying to say we are doing business as corporation sole when they assign us those fictitious names? If so, what a perversion! Where's a good lightning bolt when you need it?
: Anyway, we don't pretend to know any answers on this one, but certainly thank you for presenting the question as food for thought. I'm sure we're not the only ones chewing on this one right now, and would like to hear more from others who have contemplated this question and, hopefully, gotten into researching it.
The RCW. Revised Codes of Washington. I am of the opinion that this codification
holds the enactments from several authorities comingled. The code doesn't say.
You would have to subpoena the Act in order to verify the seal and reference with
the code revisers instructions as it related to the Act. But I'm only guessing.
Post a Followup