It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"
page: 9share:
originally posted by: manna2
THANK YOU!!
I have tried to inform mojom in multiple threads she does not understand the claims she is superimposing onto the definitions of person. It changes its definition from statute to statute. It has to be defined by the statute itself using the definition provided. There is no over riding one definition fits all for "person". The laws redefine it for each statute. The op cannot even begin to understand her own legal fiction as being a corporation. She thinks only corporations are ficticious entities when her own legal documents declare a legal fiction that needs her representation to make them real. Same as any other corporation. It all comes down to how it is defined for each statute addressed. There is no "catch-all" phrase that magicly unwinds it all for simple coffee table discussion. Each law has to be broken down and the definition of "person" defined from within it, not from outside.
I have used Justice Roberts opinion given for aca as a prime example. In it he uses the term "person" with it having at least 3 different meanings where the statute he references hides their meaning.
but these threads want to help hide all this by force feeding definitions to laws that distort all semblence of understanding. So it becomes a partisan bitchfest pretending to claim an understanding of law by declaring a simple definition in place of real due diligence and honest dialoguea reply to: WhatAreThey
Man are you ever butt hurt. He declared he had a new understanding of it from the forums. He used that info.
you dont like people who contradict you it seems. Your whole thread is a partisan bitch fest and 90% of the posts are off topic. And now you get someone discussing it ON TOPIC and you get all flustered and confused and go after the posters "person". Not his legal fiction, or user id, but you attack his personal being.
you fail!!!
a reply to: mOjOm
First thing you need to correct is "She" is a "He" so that's how you can address me, thank you. Now try to keep up, ok.
Next, that was a lovely little speech there and I really like your new catch phrase "partisan bitch fest". But you're still wrong, YET AGAIN and also YET AGAIN I will be showing you exactly why, with footnotes so you can verify what I'm saying even though you won't because you haven't so far as it would prove beyond doubt just how wrong you are. But that's fine because the more you disagree with me the more Evidence I Show proving my case. Meanwhile you show nothing but your ignorance of Law, Your Opinion and Your Inability to Learn Anything.
Last, I realize you're probably pissed because I shut you down already, repeatedly and your complete lack of facts that show anything contradicting what I've said so far. You're nothing but baseless accusations and tired rhetoric when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about which I will be showing very shortly. I urge you to follow the links I provide and verify my claims because if you do, your ignorance will be unavoidable. As far as me attacking someone's person, well, too bad, because I don't believe he's a 15 year practicing Defense Attorney and if you do you're nuts. Any Defense Attorney of 15 years would know full well what "Jury Nullification" is without having to read it here on ATS. So deal with it. Or prove me wrong. Because all you've done so far is whine and squeal and try and discredit me but you can't back up ANYTHING you've said.
Now, let me show you exactly why what I'm saying isn't "a fail" as you put it, at all. In fact here are 40 Law Professors who specialize in Corporate Law, Securities Law and Criminal Law. This comes from the American Bar Association as well. It has the statutes and footnotes to what they say and wouldn't ya know it, they are saying EXACTLY what I'm saying, only in much more detail and content.
www.americanbar.org...[ed itby]edit on 23-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)
Ok, i need to state something. At its foundation, we all agree.
corporations SHOULD NOT EVER have the rights and liberties needed for a free people to prosper and survive. Water rights come to mind.
but you guys are all arguing it backwards. You, yourself represent in a legal forum in admiralty courts, a legal fiction. Even our president represents a legal fiction as representative of THE UNTITED STATES OF AMERICA a corporation formed inthe late 1800's.
it would be better to get the results you desire to FOCUS COMPLETELY onhow to unincorporate atthe micro level and work up thereby claiming BACK rights and liberties, than it is to pretend you can change laws at the macro when you do not even understand the system in place to begin with. The corporation is a creature created by the Dutch East India Trading Company and the British East India Trading Company. It was extended to the states in the Virginia Company.
they trick you into complying by getting hou to volunteer into their corporate system. So the trick is not to be tricked. Unicorporate from the micro, workingup.a reply to: windword
corporations SHOULD NOT EVER have the rights and liberties needed for a free people to prosper and survive. Water rights come to mind.
but you guys are all arguing it backwards. You, yourself represent in a legal forum in admiralty courts, a legal fiction. Even our president represents a legal fiction as representative of THE UNTITED STATES OF AMERICA a corporation formed inthe late 1800's.
it would be better to get the results you desire to FOCUS COMPLETELY onhow to unincorporate atthe micro level and work up thereby claiming BACK rights and liberties, than it is to pretend you can change laws at the macro when you do not even understand the system in place to begin with. The corporation is a creature created by the Dutch East India Trading Company and the British East India Trading Company. It was extended to the states in the Virginia Company.
they trick you into complying by getting hou to volunteer into their corporate system. So the trick is not to be tricked. Unicorporate from the micro, workingup.a reply to: windword
originally posted by: manna2
if that be true, you are in the wrong thread.
this thread is about defining legal person. I am not sure if you have addressed the topic yet in all your posts.
I can only tell you are liberal by reading the reasons why you want things defined to your way of thinking. But I have no clue if you are even interested in the actual legal aspects of these rulings.
I suggest you start with trying to understand the actual definition of "person".
I know it is a difficult topic. But shouldnt your rants be in the political mud pit forum?
You know, I think you're the last person who should be deciding who is and isn't in the wrong thread. My Thread.
Again with your mouth just Blah Blah Blah-ing away and nothing of value coming out. I've provided you with reading material and I suggest you go read it before you continue to flap your gums. It will save a lot of time later when you realize how incorrect you are with just about everything you've been saying.
edit on 23-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: manna2
THANK YOU!!
I have tried to inform mojom in multiple threads she does not understand the claims she is superimposing onto the definitions of person. It changes its definition from statute to statute. It has to be defined by the statute itself using the definition provided. There is no over riding one definition fits all for "person". The laws redefine it for each statute. The op cannot even begin to understand her own legal fiction as being a corporation. She thinks only corporations are ficticious entities when her own legal documents declare a legal fiction that needs her representation to make them real. Same as any other corporation. It all comes down to how it is defined for each statute addressed. There is no "catch-all" phrase that magicly unwinds it all for simple coffee table discussion. Each law has to be broken down and the definition of "person" defined from within it, not from outside.
I have used Justice Roberts opinion given for aca as a prime example. In it he uses the term "person" with it having at least 3 different meanings where the statute he references hides their meaning.
but these threads want to help hide all this by force feeding definitions to laws that distort all semblence of understanding. So it becomes a partisan bitchfest pretending to claim an understanding of law by declaring a simple definition in place of real due diligence and honest dialoguea reply to: WhatAreThey
Man are you ever butt hurt. He declared he had a new understanding of it from the forums. He used that info.
you dont like people who contradict you it seems. Your whole thread is a partisan bitch fest and 90% of the posts are off topic. And now you get someone discussing it ON TOPIC and you get all flustered and confused and go after the posters "person". Not his legal fiction, or user id, but you attack his personal being.
you fail!!!
a reply to: mOjOm
First thing you need to correct is "She" is a "He" so that's how you can address me, thank you. Now try to keep up, ok.
Next, that was a lovely little speech there and I really like your new catch phrase "partisan bitch fest". But you're still wrong, YET AGAIN and also YET AGAIN I will be showing you exactly why, with footnotes so you can verify what I'm saying even though you won't because you haven't so far as it would prove beyond doubt just how wrong you are. But that's fine because the more you disagree with me the more Evidence I Show proving my case. Meanwhile you show nothing but your ignorance of Law, Your Opinion and Your Inability to Learn Anything.
Last, I realize you're probably pissed because I shut you down already, repeatedly and your complete lack of facts that show anything contradicting what I've said so far. You're nothing but baseless accusations and tired rhetoric when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about which I will be showing very shortly. I urge you to follow the links I provide and verify my claims because if you do, your ignorance will be unavoidable. As far as me attacking someone's person, well, too bad, because I don't believe he's a 15 year practicing Defense Attorney and if you do you're nuts. Any Defense Attorney of 15 years would know full well what "Jury Nullification" is without having to read it here on ATS. So deal with it. Or prove me wrong. Because all you've done so far is whine and squeal and try and discredit me but you can't back up ANYTHING you've said.
Now, let me show you exactly why what I'm saying isn't "a fail" as you put it, at all. In fact here are 40 Law Professors who specialize in Corporate Law, Securities Law and Criminal Law. This comes from the American Bar Association as well. It has the statutes and footnotes to what they say and wouldn't ya know it, they are saying EXACTLY what I'm saying, only in much more detail and content.
www.americanbar.org...[/q uote]ok, you just said absolutely nothing. You provided a link that addressed nothing no discredit me. I will once againdirectyouto your op. Now, you do the damn work if you feel you have any point. Where is the "person" in that pdf? I mean, which person by its definition are you addressing? You do not even understand your own argument.
I waited and waited in this thread for you or another to address the person, but you did not.
LET US EXAMINE THE DEVINITION OF PERSON, AS DECLARED, WITHIN THE STATUTE.
Or you can continue the partisan bitch fest
originally posted by: manna2
Ok, i need to state something. At its foundation, we all agree.
corporations SHOULD NOT EVER have the rights and liberties needed for a free people to prosper and survive. Water rights come to mind.
No, we don't all agree and for you information Corporations do have Water Rights and are already using them. Google: Corporate Water Rights and see for yourself.
You're all over the map you know it. You keep changing your argument and all I can guess is because you're grasping at straws figuring if you throw enough BS out there hopefully some of it might stick. Well, instead why don't you go READ the material I've provided??? You just sound silly at this point and you're being rude by just continuing to yammer on without reading the material provided for you in order to keep up with the conversation. Please do us all a favor and apply yourself.
a reply to: manna2
Actually, I think it would be more prudent and expedient to either mend or end the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and nulify the SCOTUS ruling as it applies to the ACA. But, I'm afraid there is no way to appeal/nulify the declaration that "corporations can have closely heal sincere beliefs".
So the trick is not to be tricked. Unicorporate from the micro, workingup
Actually, I think it would be more prudent and expedient to either mend or end the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and nulify the SCOTUS ruling as it applies to the ACA. But, I'm afraid there is no way to appeal/nulify the declaration that "corporations can have closely heal sincere beliefs".
edit on 23-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: manna2
I just went through it. You want me to do the work for you? It is your thread? You need to define person in the statute you are bitching about.a reply to: mOjOm
Already have. Many times.
You'd know this if you read any of it. Which I've also pointed out, many times. But you don't read any of it which is why you don't know any of it.
How long shall we continue this circle jerk of an argument??? I've got all day.
originally posted by: windword
Actually, I think it would be more prudent and expedient to either mend or end the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and nulify the SCOTUS ruling as it applies to the ACA. But, I'm afraid there is no way to appeal/nulify the declaration that "corporations can have closely heal sincere beliefs".
That would be one way for sure. However it's not so easy. In fact most other Legal Experts that I've read who have been discussing that say that a complete removal of the RFRA isn't likely to happen but some slight modifications are likely to happen because of all this.
The reason they say it won't be removed is because at face value nobody is going to want to support an effort to "End Religious Freedom". It's one of those things that Sounds so bad regardless of how good the reasoning may be for it, it's a political move that ruins the chance of keeping your position.
They kinda have a point there, as stupid as it may seem.
originally posted by: manna2
ok, you just said absolutely nothing. You provided a link that addressed nothing no discredit me. I will once againdirectyouto your op. Now, you do the damn work if you feel you have any point. Where is the "person" in that pdf? I mean, which person by its definition are you addressing? You do not even understand your own argument.
I waited and waited in this thread for you or another to address the person, but you did not.
LET US EXAMINE THE DEVINITION OF PERSON, AS DECLARED, WITHIN THE STATUTE.
Or you can continue the partisan bitch fest
Really??? You read through that 47 page document already did you??? Sure ya did speed reader. How long you plan on keeping this little game going, huh??? How many lies do you have to tell before you just collapse under the weight of them??? Your lack of integrity is amazing to me. It's shameful really. Not sure how you live with yourself.
originally posted by: thesaneone
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: EvillerBob
originally posted by: Annee
Free choice?
They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.
They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.
It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.
Which would all be entirely valid if only it were correct.
I can guarantee you that tomorrow morning, any woman in America will be able to go and purchase contraception without an employee of Hobby Lobby tackling them in the street and beating them into submission with a bible. Why? Because they are not stopping employees from using contraception.
Your argument is only valid if the medication involved could only be purchased with a signed letter of authority from Hobby Lobby.
Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.
This company already offered insurance.
It's about forcing a religious belief.
The point is you are pissed off that a company does not want to assist you with murdering of your child.
No if you have read anything about the BC that HL doesn't want to supply none of them are for abortion. Hl arguments are not based on scientific fact but rather their religious belief.
a reply to: mOjOm
start by removing the requirement that churches need to file for 501-c3 status to be tax exempt. It should be regardless removing restrictions. The same for Iindividuals.
you mentioned the bar. You do know about the temple bar? That it is a corporation? Owned bythe company?
you are arguing from within claimingrights and liberties only afforded to those that do not volunteer to relinquish them.
and not anywhere in any of your posts have you addressed which person you refer to. To pretend its a blanket catch all phrase. Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
start by removing the requirement that churches need to file for 501-c3 status to be tax exempt. It should be regardless removing restrictions. The same for Iindividuals.
you mentioned the bar. You do know about the temple bar? That it is a corporation? Owned bythe company?
you are arguing from within claimingrights and liberties only afforded to those that do not volunteer to relinquish them.
and not anywhere in any of your posts have you addressed which person you refer to. To pretend its a blanket catch all phrase. Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
originally posted by: manna2
Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
As I've said, I've already shown you everything you need. Just go read some of it. You aren't doing the "Work for Me". I'm providing the material so obviously I've done the work already. By reading it you are doing the Work for Yourself. So now go do some work and come back when you catch up with the rest of us. Thanx again.
I did not say i read it all. I saw what you referenced to. Glanced through it. I saw you intended to do nothing, no work outside of a google for a
reference.
you do the work, it is your thread. Which person in which statute have you identified? ZEROa reply to: mOjOm
you do the work, it is your thread. Which person in which statute have you identified? ZEROa reply to: mOjOm
which "PERSON" in which statute hac
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: manna2
Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
As I've said, I've already shown you everything you need. Just go read some of it. You aren't doing the "Work for Me". I'm providing the material so obviously I've done the work already. By reading it you are doing the Work for Yourself. So now go do some work and come back when you catch up with the rest of us. Thanx again.
ve you identified.
I have told you over and over in multiple threads the definition changes within laws
catch up? Then you must be going backwards. Sorry if i tripped you
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: manna2
Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
As I've said, I've already shown you everything you need. Just go read some of it. You aren't doing the "Work for Me". I'm providing the material so obviously I've done the work already. By reading it you are doing the Work for Yourself. So now go do some work and come back when you catch up with the rest of us. Thanx again.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: mOjOm
Yup. It's an Orwellian conundrum, for sure. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act actually outlines when and how the government may restrict and burden an individual's free expression of religious beliefs and practices.
They've certainly making things interesting while putting themselves in quite a spot in how they're going to "pierce the veil" with Religious Freedom for "Profit Corporations" without screwing up decades of already established Laws. That they've done it by using "Religion" is going to make for a really bumpy ride in trying to smooth it out too. The more you understand what's happened the more you realize why so many are stunned by the fact that they actually did it.
It's like ripping a little hole in your sweater and trying to fix it by pulling out the loose threads. Only the more you pull the bigger the hole keeps getting and the more fixing it requires.
edit on 23-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)
so i amsupposed to teach you that person means different things in different statutes and even different inthe tax code. THIS was all in my first few posts with reference.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: manna2
Show me the word in the statute you address please. I will not do the work for you.
As I've said, I've already shown you everything you need. Just go read some of it. You aren't doing the "Work for Me". I'm providing the material so obviously I've done the work already. By reading it you are doing the Work for Yourself. So now go do some work and come back when you catch up with the rest of us. Thanx again.
you sayno and give me a generic description and thats it? Really? There is a reason you do not understand the ruling. You dont want to learn the basics to the decision. You have yet to give me which "person" and statute you wantto address
originally posted by: manna2
you sayno and give me a generic description and thats it? Really? There is a reason you do not understand the ruling. You dont want to learn the basics to the decision. You have yet to give me which "person" and statute you wantto address
Nope. You can't teach me anything. You have provided NO new information at all. Every post you've made for the past 2 pages at least have been pointless other that to hear yourself speak.
I've answered all your questions already, yet you keep asking them over and over. Well, I have the same answer for you. GO BACK AND READ WHAT I WROTE THE FIRST TIME!!
Other than that I simply cannot help you. I refuse to keep repeating myself and you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. You're also just playing games and being intentionally disruptive which is rude to everyone, especially me. I've taken a lot of time researching the info I've made available and you just keep insulting me, insulting my intelligence and being a troll.
Good day to you sir or ma'am.