[P2P-F] feasible - legally - to set up an alternative government body in Wisconsin ?

Tue Mar 15 13:22:08 CET 2011

It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations.

hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another
government,
with support of the hundred thousand and more people converging in
Wisconsin, to legitimize the alternative government.

this alternative government, even if only symbolically, setting up its own
laws.

as the police itself seems to be unhappy with the current government,
they can also claim allegiance to the alternative government...

as for the judiciary, it may be of interest to check to whom they owe
allegiance - based on the constitution, and based on the legitimacy of
governmental corporations.

it may also be possible, in case the judiciary does not want to recognize,
in spite of potential constitutional right, a legitimized ( by the people )
government, that an alternative judiciary be set up.

a complementary currency, too , may be set up, to back up a government set
up by the people, for the people, legitimized by the people.

more references about legal frameworks regarding current governments of the
US, UK, and Germany, below.

It seems like a good way of reclaiming "a" government - "(y)our own" -
potentially more legitimate government.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Subject: artivist project: set up complementary collapsonomics network of
governments - as legal framework

...

 if a government is a legal framework similar to a corporation,
it is possible to set one up  ,
and organize ways to legitimize it...  elections ? or "give shares of
membership" providing access to decision making or delegation of decision
making.

more below...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM
Subject: Legally : what is a nation state ?
To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>,
econowmix at googlegroups.com, hc_ecology at yahoogroups.com,
sustainable_solidarity at yahoogroups.com

Perhaps some of us know more about this topic.

Is there a legal difference between the status of "Nation State" - its
constitution, and its potential recognition by other nation states,
and that of the legal status governing such nation State ?

>From documents I provide below, it seems that some governments and the legal
framework related to the functioning of the current operating states may
actually legally be "Corporations"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Hence what is the relation between the legal status of a Nation State, and
that of legal frameworks assuming control over such Nation State ?

And what is the relation between humans and/or legal persons,
with the original nation state,
or with the entity which controls in the form of a state the nation state ?

Also , what does it mean regarding supra / trans-national contracts ? And
what is the position of humans in relation to these ? (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law )

And what does it mean in relation to "Property" , and the legitimacy of
certain laws ? Do they apply ? Or do they only apply if we make a contract -
in that case, what is considered as a contract which binds humans to certain
of these legal frameworks ?

For the United States, Germany, and the UK, I find some of the following
documents...

----------------

US :

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

excerpts :

*"In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES.
Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by
foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version
of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our
Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized
and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title."*
*
*
*"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session.
I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34,
Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation,
Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the
District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does
this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority
to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of
Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."*

---------------------

Regarding the UK :

http://tpuc.org/node/558

http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters
John Harris - 'It's an illusion' talk at the Stoke 'Lawful Rebellion'Conference
----

Regarding Germany :

http://vimeo.com/5506711

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&biw=1024&bih=576&q=Weimarer%20Verfassung%20Geltungsbereichsartikels%2023%20des%20Grundgesetzes&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

Vortrag von Hr. Görlitz zur Rechtslage in Deutschland (2. Fassung mit
besserem Ton)

In diesem Vortrag beschreibt Herr Görlitz die Rechtslage in Deutschland. Die
BRD wurde 1990 durch die Streichung des Geltungsbereichsartikels 23 des
Grundgesetzes aufgelöst. Das Deutsche Reich existiert nach wie vor und wird
wieder handlungsfähig gemacht. Heutige Beamte der 'BRD' sind seit Auflösung
der BRD reine Privatpersonen. Das 'Bundesvermögen' und sämtliche
'Finanzämter' werden von der Firma 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur
GmbH' verwaltet. Gültiges Recht sind die Reichsgesetze, die auf der Weimarer
Verfassung vom 11. Aug. 1919 fußen.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110315/f03759d6/attachment.htm 