Quatloos!

What an I missing, he just made an analogy to corporate formation documents (article of incorporation) and birth certificates. As a birth certificate indicated a new person in the works, a formation doc creates a new person in the for of a corporation. Did mean it is the same thing. Why is this interesting, it is a simple way to explain a hard concept

NYGman wrote:What an I missing, he just made an analogy to corporate formation documents (article of incorporation) and birth certificates. As a birth certificate indicated a new person in the works, a formation doc creates a new person in the for of a corporation. Did mean it is the same thing. Why is this interesting, it is a simple way to explain a hard concept

It's a dangerous analogy, though, because even though a birth certificate and corporate documents can both be thought of as 'identity documents', they don't have the same framework behind them -- in fact, they can be said to work in opposite directions.

A birth certificate is a record of the fact that the baby, a natural person, now exists. A baby who has never gotten a birth certificate is (at least in most countries) still a legal person, still a citizen of a country, etc. A person without a birth certificate may very well be at a disadvantage in dealing with the government and obtaining government services; but ultimately the same person still exists. The person comes first, and the document simply reflects the person's identity.

Corporate formation documents, issued or ratified by a government, are what creates the corporation, the artificial person. The document comes first, and the corporation then exists as reflected by the document. A corporation without a proper formation document is not a corporation at all.

So analogizing the two forms of documents can play into the sovcit fantasy that, just like a corporate formation document creates an artificial person (separate from the natural person or persons that created it), a birth certificate creates a legal person separate from the actual natural baby.

KickahaOta wrote: Corporate formation documents, issued or ratified by a government, are what creates the corporation, the artificial person. The document comes first, and the corporation then exists as reflected by the document. A corporation without a proper formation document is not a corporation at all.
So analogizing the two forms of documents can play into the sovcit fantasy that, just like a corporate formation document creates an artificial person (separate from the natural person or persons that created it), a birth certificate creates a legal person separate from the actual natural baby.

I think that's exactly the route that the Yankson group are following, except that it is the "death" of a legal person that they are using to create their fallacy. That's why they go to great details of creating wills etc. When a person dies, the death certificate, will, and letters probate come together to produce a trust entity of the estate. It has tax obligations, assets, creditors, beneficiaries, and a trust administrator(s). Somehow the Yanksons believe that by creating a seperate trust identity that they administrate they don't have any legal obligations. "Trust" me, I'm involved with an estate trust that has to be kept alive until one of the beneficiaries departs this realm of the living. Even though the one particular beneficiary who forces us to keep it alive does everything possible to kill themselves off, he will probably outlive us all.

NYGman wrote:What an I missing, he just made an analogy to corporate formation documents (article of incorporation) and birth certificates. As a birth certificate indicated a new person in the works, a formation doc creates a new person in the for of a corporation. Did mean it is the same thing. Why is this interesting, it is a simple way to explain a hard concept

You are not missing anything. The thing you have to remember is that he is several pints shy a quart, so it is ALL NONSENSE. with no connection to reality, and on to his ireality.

Hallow wrote:Interesting here what Ken Goodman has to say about a birth certificate and supplementary letters patent during his presentation made possible by CRA; at approx the 20:54 mark. https://vimeo.com/21303808

I'll somehow have to struggle on through life without seeing it. My antiquated computer tells me;

Major bummer.

This video can’t be played with your current setup

Hallow has a thing about corporations and birth certificates;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9393&p=232751#p232754

My point, riddled with typos, was simply, it is a frekin' analogy, not a law, rule, or truth. Just a way to help explain a concept. A taken outside of that is just wrong.

Hmm, next there'll be a claim that the corporation commission cannot deny an application because that would be abortion.

grixit wrote:Hmm, next there'll be a claim that the corporation commission cannot deny an application because that would be abortion.

That would open up a whole new area of corporate law: whether a company has reproductive rights and does the government have the constitutional authority to legislate against it?