Very
interesting Amendment to address the corporate and strawman fiction .....
…on the 14th
Amendment to the united States of America Constitution… THE American Trust
Agreement of, for and by the PEOPLE.
Excerpted from:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34615.htm?utm_source=ICH%3A++Bombs+In+Boston+Kills+3&utm_campaign=FIRST&utm_medium=email
"There are no men or women defendants in the instant case; they
are various business entities…legal fictions,
existing not by natural birth but by operations of state statutes…Such business entities
cannot have been 'born equally free and independent,' because
they were not born at all.
Indeed, the framers of our
constitution could not have intended for them to be 'free and independent,' because, as
the creations of the law, they are always subservient to it.
The various states…allow for business entities to
exist but are not required to establish them. In the absence of state law,
business entities are nothing. Once created, they become property of the men
and women who own them, and, therefore, the constitutional rights that business
entities may assert are not coterminous or homogeneous with the rights of human
beings. Were they so, the chattel would become the co-equal to its owners, the
servant on par with its masters, the agent the peer of its principals, and the
legal fabrication superior to the law that created and sustains it."
-President Judge Debbie O'Dell-Seneca Opinion & Order in the
Court of Common Pleas, Washington County, Pennsylvania
Judge O'Dell-Seneca was careful to highlight how
corporations are treated differently by federal and state constitutions, by
tracing Pennsylvania's back to the original 1776 version: (parens added)
"Had the framers
intended the protections of Article I, §
1 (the inherent rights of mankind) to
extend to business entities, they certainly could have written, 'All persons are created equally free and
independent ....' They did not.
Indeed, it is federal Amendment
XIV's use of the word 'person' that makes its protections applicable to business entities, because
its drafters were presumed to have known that 'person' is a legal term of art, encompassing business entities under the
common law. This was so clear that Chief Justice Waite ruled, prior to oral
argument, that:
'The court does not wish to hear argument on the
question of whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to
deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of the opinion that it does.' Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R.
Co., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132 (1886).
Critically, the exact opposite conclusion is derived
from plain language of Article X of the Constitution
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It provides, in pertinent part:
§ 2. Certain
Charters to Be Subject to the Constitution
Private corporations which have accepted or accept the
Constitution of this Commonwealth or the benefits of any law passed by the
General Assembly after 1873 governing the affairs of corporations shall hold
their charters subject to the provisions of
the Constitution of this Commonwealth.
§ 3. Revocation, Amendment, and Repeal of Charters and
Corporation Law
All charters of private corporations and all present
and future common or statutory law with respect to the formation or regulation
of private corporations or prescribing powers, rights, duties or liabilities or
private corporations or their officers, directors or shareholders may be
revoked, amended or repealed.
Thus, the constitution vests in business entities no special rights that the laws of this
Commonwealth cannot extinguish. In sum, Defendants cannot assert the
protections of Article I, § 1, because they are not mentioned in its text."
In a footnote, O'Dell-Seneca added,
"…unlike the Constitution of the United States
wherein the word 'corporation(s)' never appears, the framers of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wrote that word 23 times. All
such uses limit corporations; none grants them rights."
Elsewhere in her Opinion and Order, the judge quoted a
1687 document by William Penn, holder of the royal charter that founded the
state, in which Penn examined notions of liberty addressed in England's Magna
Charta. O'Dell-Seneca noted that, "...nothing in his writings on liberty
suggests that Penn thought that those rights inured to businesses."
Gradually, beginning in the late 1800's, the U.S.
Supreme Court helped corporations usurp all manner of "Bill of
Rights" protections that were initially intended only for living,
breathing humans, such as free speech and equal protection, and recently, the
Supreme Court ruling on political campaign finance.
…language such as that found in decisions from Ohio
and New York:
"Corporations have such powers, and such only, as
the act creating them confers; and are confined to the exercise of those
expressly granted, and such incidental powers as are necessary for the purpose
of carrying into effect powers specifically conferred."
Elias Straus and Brother v. The Eagle Insurance
Company of Cincinnati, 5 OS 60 (1855) Ohio Supreme Court
"The corporation has received vitality from the state; it continues during its existence to be the creature of the state; must live subservient to its laws, and has such powers and franchises as those laws have bestowed upon it, and none others. As the state was not bound to create it in the first place, it is not bound to maintain it…if it violates the laws or public policy of the state, or misuses its franchises to oppress the citizens thereof."
"The corporation has received vitality from the state; it continues during its existence to be the creature of the state; must live subservient to its laws, and has such powers and franchises as those laws have bestowed upon it, and none others. As the state was not bound to create it in the first place, it is not bound to maintain it…if it violates the laws or public policy of the state, or misuses its franchises to oppress the citizens thereof."
The State ex rel. v. The C.N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co.,
The State ex rel. v. The C.W. & B. Ry. Co., 47 OS 130 (1890) Ohio Supreme
Court
"The judgment sought against the defendant is one
of corporate death. The state which created, asks us to destroy… The life of a
corporation is, indeed, less than that of the humblest citizen... The abstract
idea of a corporation, the legal entity, the impalpable and intangible creation
of human thought, is itself a fiction, and has been appropriately described as
a figure of speech.... the defendant corporation has violated its charter, and
failed in the performance of its corporate duties, and that in respects so
material and important as to justify a judgment of dissolution....
Unanimous."
NY State Court of Appeals, People v North River Sugar
Refining Co., 24 N. E. 834 (1890)
…promises
to return to common usage the language that courts once used to keep
corporations subservient.
"Organizations" & groups of live people
are continuing to research, study, discuss and share these concepts and ideas
using all the methods of communications available to them in this day and age.
Some are:
"Today, MoveToAmend.org is consolidating that
experience and energy into a national movement to put forward a U.S.
Constitutional Amendment that would end the twin, destructive fantasies that a)
money is the same as speech and b) corporations are persons." and;…
ADD OTHER GROUPS HERE:
Please feel free to distribute this information in any
way possible, add to it, especially with other groups that are pursuing the
same knowledge and acknowledgement thereof…
No comments:
Post a Comment