How Long Can A Corporation Live?

In order to keep this short, I'll get right to the point. I have been saying for over two years that Americans are still subject to the king/queen (crown) of England. Why? You are subject to whom you pay a tribute/tax. I have shown how the crown is still receiving a tax to compensate the king for his corporate venture in America. I have shown many documents where the king by Charter created several corporations in America.  These corporations were consolidated into America Inc., in 1783.  I have said and shown in these documents, that not only did the king intend for his corporations to last forever, but also his tax to benefit his heirs and successors, forever.

I am going to show you by a recently obtained newspaper article, provided by the Informer that brings the historical facts I have presented crashing into the present, in a very sobering way.

A couple of weeks ago I put out via email historical documents concerning the creation of New Jersey. I am not going to again attach them to this email, because it would make it unnecessarily long, which may cause some people to skim the information rather than read it. Anyone that would like these documents concerning the creation of New Jersey, can send me an email to that effect, and I will promptly send it to you.

I include in total at the end of this research paper the news article I will now quote from.

"....They were 12 men, most of them from London. Most would never set foot in the New World. But they owned half of what would become New Jersey, 1.1 million acres of verdant field and forest and pristine; shoreline.  

All but a smattering of those lands, were: sold off long ago, but their corporation survived, its shares handed down from generation to generation.

It is now 314 years old, the oldest continuously operated corporation in the United States. But not for long. A court will soon dissolve the East Jersey Board of Proprietors, and a vestige of Colonial America will be gone..... Still, the proprietors met every year, on the third Tuesday of May, to sort through the year's business. Shares were bought and sold, though the proprietors are circumspect when asked about the price (I could never get a straight answer," said Lurie).

Among the shareholders are prominent families like that of former Gov. Thomas Kean. Fewer than half live in New Jersey, and some live in Europe....... But if he should regret the loss, he could by a share in the board's successor as the nation's oldest corporation: the West Jersey Board of Proprietors, is still going strong with 3,200 shareholders." (Liquidation of the East Jersey Board of Proprietors, Philadelphia Inquirer August 10, 1998) 

That's right America, the very East New Jersey Charter/grant to the king's proprietors, is still alive and kicking. Also, the West New Jersey corporation which boasts 3,200 proprietors, sounds like the king's subjects are still prospering from his original grant. The only reason the East New Jersey Corporation is being dissolved is, because the young heirs have lost interest in the Corporation.

What does this mean, to dissolve the East New Jersey Corporation? This is just one question I want to address. I question that a civil District court can dissolve a corporation, it had nothing to do with, in its creation. How can a de facto court, dissolve a corporation created under the common law? If the corporation is dissolved, what does this mean?

The king of England was grantor of the corporation in America, this cannot be disputed. He is the Corporation Sole, the grantor of the early Charters. Apart of his corporate Charters were the creation of civil corporations, the governments, from the biggest to the smallest. The king also saw fit to reward those close to him with grants of land, either sole proprietors or as a group of proprietors, known as an aggregate corporation. The corporation formed by the king formed a tree with him as the base, the main corporation. His Charters are sub corporations; his sole or aggregate proprietors are sub sub corporations, further up the tree. These corporations are just as the corporations of today, in the way they are set up and managed. The United States was and is a consolidation and restructuring of the sub corporations, the colonies, North Carolina, Virginia, etc, extending to all states in Union; upon their admission they also are recreated District States, by the March 4, 1791 Act by Washington.

"Corporation Sole: A corporation consisting of one person only and his successors. An older concept of the status of a king or a bishop as incorporated in order to give to them and their successors legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which they could not have in their natural capacities." 
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Ed., 1969 

Also, see the following court cases:
ASHEVILLE DIVISION NO. 15 v. ASTON, 92 N.C. 2 S.E. 70
DOUGHERTY v. SPRINKLE, 88 N.C. 300 (1883) 2 S.E. 70
CARSON v. COMMISSIONERS, 64 N.C. 566 (1870) 2 S.E. 70
McDOWELL v. HEMPHILL, 60 N.C. 95 (1863) 2 S.E. 70
FEREBEE v. SANDERS, 25 N.C. 360 (1843) 2 S.E. 70

Now, what would be the effect of the East New Jersey proprietors corporation being dissolved? The holdings revert back up the line in the corporate tree, towards the king. If the U.S. did not exist as the corporation next in line, it would go back to the king's heirs and successors. This is called reversion.

"Reversion. The residue of an estate and left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him. The return of land to the grantor and his heirs after the grant is over." 
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, vol. 3, 1914

"....But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it....?
MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

As the original grantor and corporation (the king) exist, the corporation is forever as written. As I have said before, the Charters of the king were also written to be trusts. To further understand this read the following quotes from Blackstone's Commentaries. 

"637. d. Lay corporations. (1) Civil corporations; (2) Eleemosynary corporations. Lay corporations are of two sorts, civil and eleemosynary. The civil are such as are erected for a variety of temporal purposes. The king, for instance, is made a corporation to prevent in general the possibility of an interregnum or vacancy of the throne, and to preserve the possessions of the crown entire; for, immediately upon the demise of one king, his successor and dignity. Other lay corporations are erected for the good government of a town or particular district, as a mayor and commonalty, bailiff and burgesses, or the like: some for the advancement and regulation of manufactures and commerce; as the trading companies of London, and other towns:...." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 677

"639. b. English law. (1) Corporations by common law; (2) Corporations by prescription. But, with us in England, the king's consent is absolutely necessary to the erection of any corporation, either impliedly or expressly given....Another method of implication, whereby the king's consent is presumed, is as to all corporations by prescription, such as the city of London, and many others, which have existed as corporations, time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary; and therefore are looked upon in law to be well created. For though the member thereof can show no legal Charter of incorporation, yet in cases of such high antiquity the law presumes there once was one; and that by the variety of accidents, which a length of time may produce, the Charter is lost or destroyed." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 680

"640. (3) Consent of king, how given. (a) By parliament. The methods, by which the king's consent is expressly given, are either by act of parliament or Charter." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 681

"641. (b) By Charter. All the other methods, therefore whereby corporations exist, by common law, by prescription, and by act of parliament, are for the most part reducible to this of the king's letters patent, or Charter of incorporation. The king's creation may be performed by the words "creamus, erigimus, fundamus, incorporamus (we create, we erect, we found, we incorporate)," or the like. Nay, it is held, that if the king grants to a set of men to have gildam mercatoriam, a mercantile meeting or assembly, this is alone sufficient to incorporate and establish them forever." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 682

643. (5) Creation of corporations by patent. The king (it is said) may grant to a subject the power of erecting corporations, through the contrary was formerly held: that, is may permit the subject to name the persons and powers of the corporation at his pleasure; but it is really the king that erects, and the subject is but the instrument: for though none but the king can make a corporation, ye qui facit per alium, facit per se (he who does a thing by the agency of another, does it  himself)." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 682

"651. b. Civil corporations (1) Lay corporations. ....But first, as I have laid it down as a rule that the founder, his heirs, or assigns, are the visitors of all lay corporations, let us inquire what is meant by the founder. The confounder of all corporations in the strictest and original sense is the king alone, for he only can incorporate a society; and in civil incorporations, such as mayor and commonalty, etc., where there are no possessions or endowments given to the body, there is no other founder but the king:".... 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 685

654. 10. Dissolution of corporations. ....But the body politic may also itself be dissolved in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation: for the law doth annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the lands again, only during the life of the corporation; which may endure forever: but, when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant for life." 
Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 700

Keep in mind the East New Jersey corporation is a sub sub corporation, granted and created by the king of England, as grantor, his heirs and successors obviously exist. Since a sub sub corporation is proven to exist, the parent corporation has to exist. A sub corporation could not exist without the parent corporations existence. Obviously the parent, the grantor (the king) did not cease to exist at the end of the Revolutionary war, or by the signing of the 1783 Peace Treaty. Quite to the contrary. Just as the Informer and I have been saying, the kings corporations are alive and well. Doing What? What they were created for, collecting taxes for the heirs and successors, making a profit for the king's investment.  That's why the collection process of the IRS, or a bank are what they are. If you owe the king money he will foreclose on his property, but not to the exclusion of the rights of another corporation (creditor). For example, if you owned (that's a joke) your house and had a car financed, they would sell the house to satisfy the king's debt. They would not sell the car unless there was sufficient equity in the car to not only pay the creditor, but also enough equity left over to pay the king, over and above his collection costs. You could turn that example anyway you wanted, but now you know what established the rules for foreclosure. Read the following court case I just found in North Carolina, it should complete the reality of what in fact is taking place.

"Since the right, if existent, is derived by the State from the common law, we may first inquire into its origin and into the theory upon which it is founded. In reference to the royal prerogative, Coke says: "As to the third protection cum clausula volumus, the kind by his prerogative regularly is to be preferred in payment of his duty or debt by his debtor before any subject, although the king's debt or duty be the latter; and the reason hereof is, for that thesaurus regis est fundamentum belli, et firmamentum pacis. And thereupon the law gave the king remedy by writ of protection to protect his debtor, that he should not be sued or attached until he paid the king's debt. But hereof grew some inconvenience, for to delay other men of their suits, the king's debts were the more slowly paid. And for remedie thereof it is enacted by the statute of 25 E. 3, that the other creditors may have their actions against the king's debtor, and proceed to judgment, but not to execution, unless he will take upon him to pay the king's debt, and then he shall have execution against the king's debtor for both the two debts." 
Coke upon L., p. 131 b (1). See, also, Bacon's Abrd., 91; Giles v. Grover, 11 Eng. Rul. Cases, 549.

Whether the doctrine of the king's right to be preferred in the payment of debts due him was abrogated when the common law was adopted as the basis of American jurisprudence, or whether the functions and powers exercised by him in this respect devolve upon the several states, is a question concerning which there is divergence of opinion. The existence of the right has been maintained by the courts of New York, Montana, Minnesota, Georgia, West Virginia, Maryland, and others, and with equal emphasis it has been denied in New Jersey, Michigan, South Carolina, Mississippi, and others. Re Carnegie Trust Co. (N. Y.), 46 L. R. A. (N. S.), 260; Marshall v. People, 244 U.S., 380, 65 Law Ed., 315; AEtna Co. v. Miller (Mont.), L. R. A., 1918 C, 954; Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Rainey, 120 Tenn., 357; Freeholders v. State Bank, 29 N. J. Eq. Rep., 268; S. c., 30 N. J. Eq. Rep., 311; S. v. Harris, 16 S. C., 598; S. v. Cleary, 2 Hill (S. C.), 267, 600; Com. of Banking v. Bank, 161 Mich., 691, 705; Potter v. F. and D. Co., 101 Miss., 823; Annotation to S. v. Foster, 29 L. R. A., 243.

The theory on which the prerogative is upheld is thus stated in the case of Carnegie Trust Co., supra: "The king, therefore, and the prerogatives that were personal to him, being repugnant to our Constitution, are abrogated. But his sovereignty, powers, functions, and duties, in so far as they pertain to civil government, now devolve upon the people of the State, and consequently are not in conflict with any of the provisions of our Constitution. Inasmuch, therefore, as the claims or moneys due the king for the support and maintenance of the government, whether derived from taxes or other sources of income, were preferred over the claims of others, it follows that, under the first subdivision of the provision of the Constitution of 1777, quoted, such preference became a part of the common law of our State, and is so continued under our present Constitution." On the other hand, in Central Trust Co. v. Third Ave. R. Co., 186 Fed., 291, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, affirming an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, said: "We regard it as settled law in this State that the State does not succeed as sovereign to all the prerogatives of the British crown, among others, the right to a preference for debts due it over all other creditors." This conclusion was approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Brown v. Am. Bonding Co., 210 Fed., 844." (Corporation Commission v. Trust Co., 193 N.C. 513 (1927)

Notice in the above court case the judge says this part of the common law continues under our "present Constitution", this speaks to the fact of the change that took place in 1870 to our Constitution, and suggests further changes could take place.

Just another observation, The Queen's acceptance of the SURRENDER of the New Jersey government which took place at the Court of St. James's the 17th day of April, 1709, is a important word that needs to be defined:

Surrender: "A yielding up of an estate for life or years to him who has an immediate estate in reversion or remainder, by which the lesser estate is merged in the greater by mutual agreement...."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

This further proves what was shown earlier, no matter how it happens, the only way to change the corporate grantor, the corporation sole, is for the king to be conquered or die, it would also be necessary for him to not have any heirs or successors. Because, no matter whether the sub corporation is still alive, or it is dissolved and the holdings revert back to the crown, either a tax is due through the sub sub corporation (the proprietors), or it is paid to the sub corporation (the U.S.). The kings Charters and grants are forever, unless the king and his heirs and successors come to an end, one way or another. The crown, the heirs and successors are today alive and well, therefore, their Charters and grants that were not affected by the 1783 Peace Treaty are still in full force and effect.  The only thing to determine is which of the sub corporations exist yet today? Now we know of two, this is conclusive proof that at least the New Jersey Charters are in existence, and as I stated before the parent corporation would have to also exist.  If the New Jersey Charters are still in existence, then how about some of the others? In my state of North Carolina there is also conclusive proof, that the N.C. Charter still exists. As I have raised this issue before, it bears repeating. In the North Carolina Declaration of Rights, of 1776 wherein you and I have always been taught, that we were made to be freeman under our natural rights and common law rights were reserved for us.  However, we find that someone else's rights were reserved, the king's and those he had made grants of land to in North Carolina.  Again the king's interest concerning his debt is put before those in America that thought they were now freemen. America has never been free of the king's debt, or his tax collectors.

"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them." Section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.


8-17-98

James Montgomery


James this was given to me by a 74 year old woman friend that lives just outside Phila. and said she thought I might like a copy. Informer

>From the Philadelphia Inquirer August 10, 1998 Heading: The Nation's oldest corporation heads for the sunset.

By Jerry Schwartz 
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PERTH AMBOY, N.J. 
Before refineries lined the New Jersey Turnpike -- in truth, before New Jersey existed; before Peter was Great or George Washington was born; Before steam engines or peppermint or Robinson Crusoe -- before any of these things, the proprietors ruled. They were 12 men, most of them from London. Most would never set foot in the New World. But they owned half of what would become New Jersey, 1.1 million acres of verdant field and forest and pristine ; shoreline. All but a smattering of those lands , were: sold off long ago, but their corporation survived, its shares handed down from generation to generation. It is now 314 years old, the oldest continuously operated corporation in the United States. But not for long. A court will soon dissolve the East Jersey Board of Proprietors, and a vestige of Colonial America will be gone. "It was very traumatic for a number of members. It was all done with a heavy heart," said Frederick A. Gerken, the board registrar. The board has fallen victim to a very modern malady: Itsshareholders, most of them elderly, are afraid they may face legal liability for environmental and other problems on lands the board owns. The age of the board's members is itself a problem. For hundreds of years, shares were kept within families, but, sadly, in the 1990s the allure of being part of history is not what it once was.

"The grandchildren who might have become involved, well, really, it doesn't mean anything to them." Gerken said. The breakup wasn't easy. The board is not chartered by the state -- it predates the state -- and it took awhile to determine that a court could terminate the corporation. The court should act in a few months. There also was the matter of what to do with the board's assets.

Its real estate operations, including the rights to any remaining lands, were sold to the state for $300,000, according to Jim Hall, assistant commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. Its sole building, the surveyor general's two-room brick office in Perth Areboy, was sold to that city for a dollar. And its greatest treasure, more than 300 years of maps and records, was donated to the state archives in Trenton. When they are made available to the public in a year or two, these papers will offer a window into history. Most of them are deeds, recording the sale of land marked by a prominent oak tree or the course of a creek. But there is also the last will and testament of Simon Roude from March 26, 1689: "Being very sick of body but of perfect mind, I do bequeath my body unto the earth for decent burriaI and my soul unto God who gave it. Nextly it is my will that after my decease my wife will have the benefit of my housing land and meadow." And there is the court record of "Sambo the Negro," who was: charged with burning his master's barn in 1667. He was acquitted, but: that was not the end of his troubles." The court levied costs of 5 pounds, 3: shillings and 8 pence, which his master refused to pay, so Sambo was sold. And there is a large red portfolio containing, among other things, two 3 1/2-foot-wide pieces of parchmerit -- the words "This indenture" in black lettering inches tall, followed by streams of tiny script. This is the original deed for all of East New Jersey, the birth certificate of the East Jersey Board of Proprietors. In 1664, King Charles II granted rights to what is now New Jersey to his brother, the Duke of York, who then divided those lands. The west went to Lord John Berkeley, the east to Sir George Cathetet. When they died, under the terms of their wills, their lands were sold to retire their debts. The 12 men who bought East Jersey in 1682 were a prosperous lot, including a goldsmith, two skinners, a draper and a tailor. The best known was William Penn, the Quaker who already had been deeded Pennsylvania. But the cost was steep: 4,800 pounds. So the proprietors brought in 12 more men, most of them Scots, to share the burden; the corporation's first meeting was in 1684. Later, the shares were split 4-for-l, bringing the total to 96. Until 1702, the proprietors were the law in East Jersey, but then they ceded the right to govern to Queen Anne, and contented themselves with selling and renting the land. Like most landlords, the proprietors were not always popular. There were riots when the board tried to collect quit-rents from settlers who were obligated to pay so much per acre of farmland or woodland or city lots. Maxine Lurie, a professor who teaches New Jersey history at Seton Hall University, said the Revolutionary War ended the proprietorships that owned Pennsylvania and Maryland. But the New Jersey boards survived -- because among their number were supporters of the revolutionary cause, because so many were prominent people, and because they were willing to change with the times. "Here we had an organization that seems to come out of feudal times, and it becomes a modern corporation," Lurie said. "It's kind of a strange transformation, but that's what happens." In the 1790s, she said, the board began a rapid sale of its holdings. "People throughout New Jersey are stealing their lumber, they're squatting on their land. People are taking it from them piecemeal. They might as well sell," Lurie said... Over the years, the proprietors were rewarded with a dozen dividends of 5,000 or 10,000 acres each, and four dividends of cash.