You are on page 1of 7

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A couple of weeks ago I put out via email historical documents concerning the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

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:

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
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.


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
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.

Gradually, the board's primary responsibility turned to title research, helping

certify that sellers had title to land that was being sold, using records that
extended back to the original East Jersey deed. 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. Rutgers University owns one share. Forty
years ago, a prominent alumnus inherited the stock and donated it to the state
university. Richard P. McCormick, a professor of history, persuaded the school to
dedicate all dividends to a fund to buy books on New Jersey history. Over 40
years, the fund collected several thousand dollars. McCormick represented Rutgets
at the board's meetings. Now retired, he said he would not mourn its passing. "It
had essentially outlived its use fullness," he said. But if he should regret the
loss, he could buy 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.

James, the West Jersey is still going strong and is further evidence the Crown
(parent company) still exists. Wouldn't it be great to find out more about the
West Jersey bunch? Go to it James, lay it on the non believers. This ought to
quell all the hostility against our facts and maybe they will sit up and take
notice. Can't wait to see what you write.