This is rubbish. Show us an example of a corporation sole with a board of directors or otherwise retract this post.
Dear Anonymous at 12:24 pm, I just did, but you did not understand. A corporation sole is not just a Bishop. He/She can also be the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of Defense has a Board of Directors. I also stated that The first to hold the title of a corporation were the monks. Such monasterial corporations usually had several officers functioning as a Board of Directors and were therefore, called a "corporation aggregate."
Show me an example of a Secretary of Defense that is both a corporation sole and a has a board of Directors. I don't buy it. You may mean that the Secretary of Defense is a corporation sole and the Defense Department has a board of Directors, but that is quite different.Please look at the following linkhttp://www.incorp.com/incorp-FAQ.aspx#253and especially note this statement:"A corporation sole can legally engage in any activities that any other non-profit corporation legally can. Corporation sole statutes, having come about largely because of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, specifically reserve the office of corporation sole to Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and other heads of church dioceses. A corporation sole is legally classified by all states that legally recognize them as non-profit corporations. For all practical purposes, the only difference between a corporation sole and a corporation aggregate is that the corporation sole doesn't have a board of directors -- it only has one ("sole") officer."I wonder whether you will actually post this?In any case, why are you speaking about "corporations aggregate" at all? This only confuses the issue. "Corporations aggregate" are, quite obviously, not "Corporations sole". You even highlight the following: "In contrast to a corporation sole, a corporation aggregate consists of two or more persons, typically run by a board of directors", but I think you fail to understand it.
Dear Anonymous at 1:27 pm, Did you not read my entire entry post? It stated: "Most corporations sole are church-related (for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury), but some political offices of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States are also corporations sole. In the United Kingdom, for example, MANY OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE ARE CORPORATION SOLES." The Secretary of State of Education has a Board of Directors.
"The Secretary of State of Education has a Board of Directors."Where did you get that information? Please post a reference as I cannot find anything that suggests that this is true.Also, you made no comment on the incorp.com statement that "For all practical purposes, the only difference between a corporation sole and a corporation aggregate is that the corporation sole doesn't have a board of directors"
Dear Anonymous at 12:49 am, Below are some quotes from the weblink below: 1. The office of bishop in most dioceses in the U.S. is a corporation sole. 4 New Catholic Encyclopedia, Corporation 337 (1967). A current review as of 1988 reveals approximately one-third of the diocesan bishops are corporations sole. The remainder of the dioceses have small boards, usually appointed by the bishop. See Maitland, The Corporation Sole, 16 Law Quarterly Review 335 (1900), reprinted in F. Maitland, Selected Essays 73 (1936). These speak about dioceses rather than seminaries. Nevertheless, a few of the dioceses have a board appointed by the Bishop. I also found the following interesting: 2. If I hire a Lawyer or Accountant, Will He or She Understand the Corporation Sole? In some instances yes, in most cases no. The corporation sole is not taught in modern law school classes. Unless the lawyer has had extensive experience with ecclesiastical or canon law, or other ecclesiastical bodies using the corporation sole, and well versed and learned in corporation sole, the chances are the lawyer, accountant, or advisor, will be entirely unfamiliar with the corporation sole. http://www.luckymojo.com/satanism/firstchurchofsatan/cosfiles/COS_Corporation_Sole.htmlThe Denver Law firm whom the Archbishop consulted specialized in religious institutions, canon law, and corporation soles. I will take the conclusion of this law firm.
Dear Diana, with respect - what has this to do with the question? It is true to say that there are such things as "corporations sole". Some bishoprics are constituted as corporations sole, some are not. Those that are, do not have boards of directors. Those that are not constituted as corporations sole do have "small boards". So, this seems to confirm that corporate sole do not have boards of directors.Your assertion is that some corporations sole have boards of directors. I have provided a link to a page which confirms that "For all practical purposes, the only difference between a corporation sole and a corporation aggregate is that the corporation sole doesn't have a board of directors".So far you have not been able to show a single instance where this is not true, despite your reference to the Secretaries of State. Yes, it is true that some political offices are constituted as "corporations sole", but it does not follow that they have "boards of directors". Perhaps they have associated trusts or departments that may have boards of directors, but the "corporation" does not.Finally, you seem to be saying that the Denver Law firm whom the Archbishop consulted made some claim that corporations sole have a board of directors - where did you get that impression? The RMS is not a corporate sole, is it? Rather, it is an incorporated not-for-profit with a board of directors. In other words, it is a "corporation aggregate". Its sole member is the current Archbishop, and although his office is constituted as a corporate sole, this has no bearing on the incorporation of the RMS.
My concern with Archbishop Apuron is lack of concern for the poor along with social disadvantaged community on island. There are increasing drug abusers, homeless, people, depressed people, people unable to go to the store to buy bread, milk, eggs. Yet Archbishop is out of ouch with reality of their lives. Archbishop shows no concern whatsoever for our islands poor. Worsened by fact he flaunts his personal wealth around the poor families. Flaunting of his wealth infront of our poor is disturbing to community. No concern for our poor only rich he supports. NCW we know is full of rich people like you Diana but reality is Guam has increasing poor and Archbishop laughs at the poor comforts rich. Sorry this is how we feel.
Dear Anonymous at 10:37 am, I am rich?????? That is news to me! Please get your facts straight. I am not rich at all.