View Full Version : Listen to this! Excellent! Lawful Rebellion. Privatized government. Corporate government.

Magda Hassan
04-26-2009, 12:31 PM
Based on the UK situation but many parallels to others. Extremely interesting and well worth a listen. Make a cuppa and settle in for half an hour. I know nothing about this guy or the organisation but it sounds great and worthy of further exploration.


The speaker is John Harris.

The event is "Lawful Rebellion Conference" held in England in January 2009.

Who is actually ruling us? How are they ruling us? And under what law?

Do you ever get the feeling that the government is being run for someone else's benefit and not for the benefit of the governed?

You may be right.

Study the language they use. It reveals a lot.

Myra Bronstein
04-26-2009, 06:47 PM
Based on the UK situation but many parallels to others. Extremely interesting and well worth a listen. Make a cuppa and settle in for half an hour. I know nothing about this guy or the organisation but it sounds great and worthy of further exploration.


The speaker is John Harris.

The event is "Lawful Rebellion Conference" held in England in January 2009.

Who is actually ruling us? How are they ruling us? And under what law?

Do you ever get the feeling that the government is being run for someone else's benefit and not for the benefit of the governed?

You may be right.

Study the language they use. It reveals a lot.

The last president to govern for the benefit of the people was Kennedy. This is why he was terminated with extreme prejudice.

I'll make a cuppa and have a listen.

Magda Hassan
04-27-2009, 09:57 AM
Interesting that you should post this link David.

David Guyatt
04-27-2009, 12:27 PM
It is a most interesting and intriguing presentation. I had looked into some of this before, albeit briefly, but seeing is believing.

"Members of Parliament" is a registered for profit company as evidence by the Dun & Bradstreet entry shown in the presentation. Gordon Brown MP, is a registered trading company. The Labour Party, also trading as Alistair Darling, MP (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is a for profit trading company. Ditto David Cameron. Every court and police force in the country is a registered for profit trading company. All are listed on Dun & Bradstreet.

It's simply mind-blowing.

Magda Hassan
04-28-2009, 02:34 AM
It's simply mind-blowing. That was my reaction also David. Incredible! I would love to know if it is the same situation here and I suspect it is. I will have to investigate further.

I think I recognised one of the other speakers, Brian Gerrish?, (at side of stage, he doesn't speak in this video) at that conference as being someone who has spoken out against 'Common Purpose' which seems to be a group with a very hidden agenda.

This is definitely worth further investigation.

Magda Hassan
04-28-2009, 01:13 PM

David Guyatt
04-28-2009, 01:45 PM
Three facts stood out for me. 1) there was a County Court Judgement registered against this business last year and, 2) there is no parent company and finally, the MoJ also trades as Central Devon Magistrates Court.

Why the latter I wonder?

Magda Hassan
04-28-2009, 02:03 PM
I would be most interested to know more about the county court judgement against the business also. Who instigated it and what for.

Yes, not having a parent company is an interesting point.

As for your last point David I think you will find that the B & D company search for the MoJ will bring up all the court houses individually as the MoJ trades as all of them at their respective addresses. MoJ being General HQ so to speak.

I'd love to know who Lord Falconer is when he is at home.

Also is the military set up along similar lines? The police certainly are according to the video.

Edit: Pardon me, I see your point about the MoJ trading as the Central Devon Magistrates Court.

David Guyatt
04-28-2009, 04:02 PM
Lord Falconer is Blair's chum:


Lord Falconer Biography
Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton (born November 19, 1951) is a British lawyer and Labour Party politician. In June 2003 he became the first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and (probably the last) Lord Chancellor.

Educated at Trinity College, Glenalmond, and Queens’ College, Cambridge, Charlie Falconer became a flatmate of Tony Blair when they were both young barristers in London in the early 1970s. They had first met as pupils at rival schools in the 1960s. While Blair went into politics, Falconer concentrated on his legal career, becoming a Queen's Counsel in 1991.

In May 1997 Blair became Prime Minister and Falconer was made a life peer and joined the government as Solicitor General. In 1998 he became Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, taking over responsibility for the Millennium Dome after the resignation of Peter Mandelson. He was heavily criticised for the failure of the Dome to attract an audience, but resisted calls for his resignation.

He joined the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration after the 2001 election and moved on to the Home Office in 2002. At the Home Office he was responsible for criminal justice, sentencing and law reform, and annoyed some of his fellow lawyers by suggesting that their fees were too high.

In 2003 he joined the Cabinet as the first Constitutional Affairs Secretary. The post took over many of the responsibilites of the Lord Chancellor, the Welsh Secretary and the Scottish Secretary. Falconer remained Lord Chancellor while the process to abolish the office was started, but announced his intention not to use the Lord Chancellor's power to sit as a judge. He has also stopped wearing the traditional robe and wig of office. The replacement of Derry Irvine, Blair's mentor, with Charlie Falconer, one of his best friends, gave Blair's opponents a further opportunity to criticise the role of "Tony's cronies" in the government.

On the military side, I imagine (but do not know) that the Ministry of Defence (once more honestly known as the "Ministry of War" before Orwellian newspeak arrived) is, it self, a trading company. Especially when the UK was (or still is?) the 4th largest arms exporter in the world.

David Guyatt
04-29-2009, 12:59 PM
More on this subject below. I am truly intrigued to discover how this works out in the fullness of time. Only a case brought under law would demonstrate whether what this guy says and believes to be the case is actually the case.


Magda Hassan
04-29-2009, 01:26 PM
Has any one taken it that far?

Have you looked at the TV licensing section? We used to have tv licensing here but it stopped in the 1960's. Seems a strange thing to do licence a tv.

Magda Hassan
04-29-2009, 01:30 PM
On the military side, I imagine (but do not know) that the Ministry of Defence (once more honestly known as the "Ministry of War" before Orwellian newspeak arrived) is, it self, a trading company. Especially when the UK was (or still is?) the 4th largest arms exporter in the world.

I can imagine that it would be a real nice little earner that one.

Linda Minor
04-29-2009, 03:04 PM
As a student of law, history and also political theory, I find myself wondering how the speaker (John Harris) would change things. He doesn't say what his concept of government is, just that he's against the existing one.

There is a long history of changing theories in political philosophy about how to run governments--that means, how to build infrastructure, protect property and people from other people, and to protect the governmental units from other "foreign" governments.

There was a republican government (meaning one created by the members of the entire society who elected representatives) back in ancient Athens. It gradually deteriorated and collapsed and was followed by an empire in Rome. During the "dark ages," government was strictly one of power. Whoever could garner the most property and control a network that would enforce his power in his name.

As working people over the centuries were able to accumulate enough property to contest this power, they began to create alternative theories to how government "should" work. John Locke in England and Montesquieu in France wrote about "natural law," a concept derived both from the ancient writings from Plato's Republic and from more modern principles of Christian principles from the New Testament.

I'm not sure where John Harris came up with his theories, but it seems to me to be quite deceptive. He ignores the long history of political theory and common law. What is his motive?

This seems very similar to what was going on in Texas in the early-1990's under the rubric of the "Republic of Texas." It was a fraudulent scheme seemingly devised to issue their own paper money to acquire goods and merchandise from others, as well as to avoid paying taxes assessed by existing "governments." See their wiki link:

I was working in land title work at the time, and it caused a terrible hiatus in title property law back then. Exactly the same arguments were being made to convince people to go along with them.

What I decided is that there are people who do not like the existing government and do not want to pay taxes to support it. But they have no alternative to how to get people to agree to another system of building infrastructure, etc. I believe government is necessary, but the older I get, the more I believe in the impossibility of forming consensus with others. If we can't even reach agreement over issues with members of our own families, how are we ever going to agree with other people?

We elect leaders to pass laws for our benefit, but then we don't want to pay taxes to finance the necessary activities, e.g. police, armies, firemen, hospitals...on and on. Over time, in my opinion, what has happened in the U.S. is that a secret bureaucracy has taken hold that will provide these necessary functions for us and that this group has also devised a secret financing system.

I think originally this group arose out of the British Fabians, and they financed socialism from opium profits derived from trade the government took over from the East India Company. That may be a total misconception on my part, but I have found some evidence that leads me to believe it. I'm sure it is not the entire truth, however, because there have been similar competitive groups using the same concepts.

It appears the group John Harris was speaking for is planning another protest in London in June:

You can fill out a request for tickets or get your name and address on their list without being told ahead of time how much they are charging for tickets and where the money is going. That is what I find most laughable --no, pathetic--about all this. It's just another scam.

David Guyatt
04-30-2009, 09:30 AM
My sense is that he doesn't have an alternative political system Linda, but just doesn't want to be constrained by what he regards as a "commercial law" system posing as the law of the land. There is a lot made of the differences between "Sea law" (i.e., Admiralty law - in other words contract law) and the "Law of the Land" (or common law) which he holds to be pre-eminent. He rails against the former and "statute law" and declines to pay tax, or have his car taxed etc etc.

It is far too complex for me to properly analyze as just the thought of reading tombs on the law fills me with trepidation - and a sort of sleepiness begins to surge through my blood.

But I do find it interesting because so much of our lives today are governed by contract law and, indeed, one is often held to have acquiesced to a legal contract even if one is completely unaware of having done so --- which can't be just.

I am at the stage of life where "Victor Meldrew" has taken possession of me, and so I admit to sharing a certain enthusiasm for his position. :argh:

Magda Hassan
04-30-2009, 12:05 PM
I don't doubt that there are people involved in this and other events seeking to make money, and it certainly takes money to rent halls and pay for PA systems, insurance, transportation etc. I don't doubt that some people will be attracted to this if they think they don't have to pay any taxes and some government costs. It seems the same with some of the Libertarian politics followers which is fashionable in some places now. I have no problem with an organising centre for our society to plan and deliver infrastructure and universal services and I have no problem in paying taxes to provide them for all. But what is happening here? I am not sure how the legal system is set up in the US since they broke with the British monarchy some time ago. But Britain (and to a lesser extent Australia) is still very feudal in many respects. Perhaps now a blend of feudal and corporate. I had no idea that the institutions spoken about could possibly be companies or corporations. Nor, do I think it would even occur to most people. These are 'public' institutions but on the face of it they could be bought and sold perhaps go bankrupt and be foreclosed. The distinction between the law of the land and the law of the sea is very interesting - the 'dock' for the accused. For me it is the existence of it in plain sight but totally unknown (by most and including those that work with in it) that I find amazing. I think John Harris experienced the same incredulity when it was made apparent to him and he wants to reassert his natural rights and for others to at least think about it.

Linda Minor
04-30-2009, 03:06 PM
I know I'm not expressing my thoughts about this very clearly because it is a very complicated concept he talked about. What I think is that it's very hard to find the money to pay for things a governmental entity want to accomplish. What I've seen in research I've done is that ways are devised to pay for such things by following legal models outside of the way "the law" says they are to be funded.

I don't know how schools are set up in England, but in Texas the law, which is the Texas Constitution and statutes, mandates that the people within the school district have to vote for improvements that will not be paid for out of the current budget. That means they have to market bonds to people willing to buy them and collect the interest over a period of years. Usually the school district has a stockbroker who has an attorney who issues its bonds and markets them to the general public.

That is the way most governmental functions are financed by law--through people engaged in municipal brokerage. Over the years, however, as bonds may not have paid out as promised. Also, the municipal traders are always looking for ways to keep their own incomes coming in and/or increasing. What I saw in Houston when I worked there for the county attorney was that the statutes were constantly being changed to cover new types of governmental entities that did not conform to the constitution.

(This is already getting much more complicated than anyone reading it would care to learn, I can tell, and that is why Mr. Harris can find a receptive audience.)

In Houston when I was there the county owned the already obsolete Astrodome, which had been built in the early 1960's I think. It was probably one of the first stadiums built with the concept of making it a "public purpose" for a government to entertain people or to provide an exposition center for people to gather for sporting events, etc. By changing the law, the financiers of the Astrodome were able to acquire land by eminent domain and issue tax-exempt bonds.

However, by 1990 the Astrodome was no longer a favorable place for the baseball team to play, and the owner said he would move the team to another city if the county fathers did not build a new stadium. Since the lease the team had signed still had several years to run, that meant he would break the lease which should have made it worthless, plus causing a penalty that could have been assessed against him.

That was the opinion that some of the attorneys working for the then-county attorney wrote. But the elected county attorney did not give that advice to the other officials. Instead, he agreed to work with them in figuring out a way to buy out a legally worthless property (the years remaining on a lease that was to be broken) in order to come up with funds that could be considered as equity from the team toward a new stadium.

That is what did happen. They got around the law with creative new financing or simply ignoring the law as it was written. When we had given similar advice a couple of years earlier about the county's helping to finance a horse racing track, the county fathers had simply hired a bond attorney to lobby the legislature to pass a new law to authorize such things.

The point I'm making is that the statutes and the corporations John Harris talks about in his video are the way our governments work. Under the original political theories of Locke and Montesquieu and other theorists of democratic and republic governments we have to reach consensus with other voters in the community in order to create constitutions. Those constitutions delegate day-to-day operations to the congress and to legislators to write statutes, which are then interpreted by courts and enforced by executives. In America that checks and balances system was written into the constitution.

Over time, as bureaucratic financiers become ever more creative, they convince our elected officials to engage with them in projects to give the people more than was ever bargained for by those who founded the system a century or more ago. But that IS how THE LAW does work.

Do I like it? No way. I resigned from my job and left Houston. But I don't see it changing. Recently we made a trip back to Houston, and I was amazed to see how the downtown area had changed. In the years I worked there, as I walked from my bus stop to work, I had to dodge panhandlers and alcoholics who slept and urinated in the streets. Now those same areas are serviced by modern rail transport, another new stadium and even people living downtown in loft apartments.

All I'm saying is that government is not as simple as John Harris and the group he is a part of would like us to believe it is. Government really does involve trade because it is one of the largest components of public enterprise.

Bruce Clemens
05-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Linda, that was a very well -reasoned and thoughtful explanation. I had the same initial reaction when I watched the video- that the points made were familiar territory, but instead of the Republic of Texas I was thinking of the Montana Freemen.

I think his points about the difference between Common Law and contractual obligations are correct. But, again, what are you going to do? One thing I think was a little misleading- the sequence showing two police officers turning away after being challenged to produce the law they were supposedly trying to enforce seemed to indicate that that outcome would be typical if the populace were only educated enough to challenge them. That WILL NOT happen in America. The thugs we have here will only see any questioning as an escalation and drag you away regardless. There are plenty of income tax protesters in U.S. prisons regardless of the fact that there is no law on the books that says you have to pay- only statutes created by a government bureaucracy.

Interestingly, D&B does list U.S.governmental institutions as businesses. In addition it lists individuals; President Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld, to name two I found.

I believe that the points made in the video are valid, but as you alluded to, we will never be able to change the system we have, so what does he want us to do? As you are, I am very skeptical of folks who point out these kinds of things and then go on to offer more information for a price.

I am curious as to what criteria D&B use to list a business. Why would individuals be listed?

Magda Hassan
05-04-2009, 04:22 AM
Interestingly, D&B does list U.S.governmental institutions as businesses. In addition it lists individuals; President Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld, to name two I found.


I am curious as to what criteria D&B use to list a business. Why would individuals be listed?

I am curious also on how their entries are classified. As for Clinton and Rumsfeld they are both retired from government and I wonder in their case if they are not now incorporated for the purposes of tax deductions for their speakers fees and appearance fees? If there are any currently serving members of congress or the senate that would be interesting.

Personally, I do believe that people can make changes to their lives, community and society. It has only ever been through people that any change has ever occurred. Not that it is easy and there is certainly resistance from those with interest in the staus quo. If you believe there is no hope of change being possible that is half the battle won for them. You don't have to go quietly. You don't have to go at all.

Magda Hassan
08-27-2010, 01:25 AM
Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On

The Manta.com (http://manta.com/) website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com (http://manta.com/) will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee. But since this article is about “funny” stuff and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.

For example, if you type “Government of the United States ” into the Manta.com (http://manta.com/) search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”. The first “company” on the list is: “Government of the United States (US Government) HQ “the u.s. Capitol Washington DC ” The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”. Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”.

Pretty funny, hmm?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information. For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States ” has its address at: “the u.s. capitol “ Washington , DC 20515-0001 ” It’s phone number is “(202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_ skype_ highlighting (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting”. Business Hours are “24/7”. You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC .

None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company”). But the report begins to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States ” where we read: “government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington ,dc”. Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States ” was owned by an archbishop? Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States ,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read: “all receipents [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by barack obama administration.” The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States ” that we all so love and admire. And bear in mind that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies. (Note: I have been trying to inform Americans for many years that WE DO NOT HAVE A VOTE. THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE TO BE DECEIVED - MAKES ALL THIS MUCH EASIER FOR THEM TO PULL OFF - SO THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY IN CONTROL WHEN WE VOTE!!. THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATORS AND THE CONGRESS CRITTERS DO NOT WORK FOR YOU AND ME. THEY WORK FOR THIS PRIVATE 'CORPORATION,' AND THE TOP OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION ARE PRE-SELECTED AS TO WHO WILL BE OCCUPYING THE OFFICES OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF STATE AS WELL AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. EVEN JUDGES ARE SELECTED. WE DO NOT HAVE A VOTE.

OK, OK—maybe this article isn’t really all that “funny” (ha-ha!), but it’s still pretty “funny” (strange).

Go back to the top of the “Government of the United States ” page and click the “More Info” tab. Under “Employees (Estimated)” you’ll read: “2,768,886 at this location “3”

2.7 million federal employees sounds about right. This enormous number of employees confirms that we’re viewing information on the “Government of the United States ” but if only “3” of those millions of employees are “At this location” (the “HQ”), who are the “chosen 3”? And where, precisely, IS “this location”? Capitol Hill? But where? In the Senate chamber? The House of Representatives? Some cloak room? Curiouser and curiouser.

Under “State of Incorporation ” you’ll read “Information not found”. This could mean that this “Government” was never formally “incorporated”. Or it might mean that the information concerning that incorporation is intentionally concealed. However, we can see a clue to the possible date of incorporation for this “Government of the United States ” under the heading “Years in Business” which reads “223”. If the “Government of the United States ” began 223 years ago, there should be a constitution or charter to mark its creation at that time. This is A.D. 2010, so “223” years ago would be A.D. 1787. But that’s odd. Why? Because our current “Government of the United States ” should have been created by “The Constitution of the United States ” and therefore could not have existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention completed the final draft of the Constitution on September 17th. That proposed Constitution for a new “federal government” was then submitted to the Congress that already existed under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in A.D. 1781). The Confederation Congress quickly “approved” the proposed Constitution under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation and then sent it out to We the People for ratification. Article VII of the Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I.e., the Constitution (and resulting federal government) could not become effective and operational until it was ratified by at least nine of the States of the Union . Thus, while the Constitution may have been “approved” by the existing Congress in A.D. 1787, it could not have been established and ordained by We the People until ratified by at least 9 States. The 9th State ( New Hampshire ) did not ratify until June 21st, A.D. 1788.

Wikipedia article “Unites States Constitution” reports:

“Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire 's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the new Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the [new, federal] government began operations.”

Since the Constitution created our modern federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States ” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true. Similarly, given that the new “Government” created by the Constitution was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken. Big deal, hmm? Who cares? Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill? Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “221” or even “220”? I doubt it. If I’m right, it is a “big deal”. Here’s why:

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com (http://manta.com/) reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”. When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States ” report two years ago, Manta.com (http://manta.com/) had a different website format. In that earlier format, Manta.com (http://manta.com/) reported that “Government of the United States ” started in “1787”. In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year (and probably two) before the Constitution itself was ratified and the resulting federal government became operational. I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com (http://manta.com/) website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788, so I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com (http://manta.com/) website pages for safekeeping.

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com (http://manta.com/) website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years. That’s not big change. It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error but, given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced. It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States ” is correctly declares that it started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People. If so, as crazy as it sounds, it is therefore conceivable that there might be two editions of our “Constitution”: 1) one approved by the Confederation Congress in A.D. 1787; and 2) another, ratified by We the People in A.D. 1788. The text of both of these “editions” of the Constitution would be identical, but the underlying authority would be completely different. (Note: I have been trying to inform Americans about this for years. Wish to heck I had written this report.)

Under the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788, the enacting authority and national sovereigns are We the People. Under the possible Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would be the Congress. If Congress were the constitutional sovereign, then you and I are subjects or even slaves. If the Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787 were in effect (rather than the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788), you and I can’t be free.

Yes, this conjecture sounds like another howling conspiracy theory but, even so, since the Constitution wasn’t ratified until 1788 and the resulting government didn’t become operational until 1789, D&B’s report that the government began “223” years ago and/or began in “1787” can’t be accurate. It seems odd that an entity as professional a D&B would make such a peculiar error. It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company, the “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.

Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com (http://manta.com/) search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:

1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and

2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.

Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read: “United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco , CA . . . .” Whut th’ . . . ?! The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA ” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?

More? Look under the heading "United States House of Representatives Business Information" and you'll read: “United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.” The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the House of Representatives? Is she the CEO or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?

The 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.

Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government trading cards featuring the House of Reps and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying? Who’s selling?

• Enter “US Social Security Admin” into the search engine. Scroll down a bit and you’ll read, "US Social Security Admin is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Social and Human Resources and located in West Branch, MI.” So Social Security is a “private company” that’s not located in Washington DC , but rather in “West Branch, MI”? I don’t know what that means, but I can’t help but laugh. Somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

• Try “Internal Revenue Service”. Manta.com (http://manta.com/) will produce “41,632 matching U.S. companies”. Some of these are clearly private entities that have no governmental pretense, but many or most are “governmental”. If you click on the link to “Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Dst Council,” you’ll read, “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Portland , OR .”

Click the “Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center . . . . Andover MA ” link and you’ll read that “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Andover , MA .”

Two different locations indicate two different “private companies”.

These reports (and scores more) suggest that each individual IRS office may be a separate “private company”. Therefore, if you’re contacted by an IRS office in Austin , Texas , you may be dealing with one “private company”. If you’re subsequently contacted by another IRS office from, say, Provo , Utah —you might be dealing with a completely different “private company”. What’s your obligation to talk to several different “private companies” about your income taxes? Are there privacy concerns in sharing your tax information with several private companies? And given that there are at least several score (and perhaps several thousand) “private companies,” operating as the IRS, who are you paying your income taxes to? H&R Block?

• There are a host of additional “private companies” that you might want to research. I collected website pages for about two dozen in 2008 and 2009. I’m not sure how many you’ll still find today, but if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be fascinated: “United States Court of Appeals,” “District of Columbia,” “George W Bush,” and “Supreme Court of the United States”. All were listed by D&B as “private companies”.

You may be able to find other D&B reports that are similarly fascinating or bewildering. What does D&B have to say about the CIA or Homeland Security? Inquiring minds wanna know.

• What’s it all mean? I’m not sure. Perhaps D&B is merely guilty of gross negligence when it comes to entering data on governmental entities. Or, maybe the entire structure of what currently passes for “government” is actually a conglomerate of “private companies”. If so, the true nature of the “Government of the United States ” might not be that of a “republic” or even a “democracy,” but rather a combination of governmental and corporate interests (“private companies”) that’s usually described as “fascism”. If so, we no longer have “government of the People, by the People and for the People” but instead have “government of the subjects, by the Congress, and for the Corporations.”

Whatever the explanation, somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

Today, when it comes to government, an appearance of reality seems to have been substituted for reality. Our government is not what it appears to be, not what it professes to be — and that’s not funny at all, is it?