Don't Be Upset That Corporations Have Free Speech, U.S. 'Citizens' You Are A Corporation

First off, Let us say hello to Persephone. Bringer of Destruction.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44f54c8fa942.jpg[/atsimg]

In Greek mythology, Persephone (pronounced /pərˈsɛfəniː/; Kore or Cora) was the embodiment of the Earth's fertility at the same time that she was the Queen of the Underworld, the korē (or young maiden), and the parthenogenic daughter of Demeter and, in later Classical myths, a daughter of Demeter and Zeus. In the Olympian version, she also becomes the consort of Hades when he becomes the deity that governs the underworld.

Wikipedia



More on that later.

Disclaimer: I am no expert in this matter. This is of my own personal research into the definitions only of 'Corporations' and 'Persons'.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, has a lot of people huffing and puffing about a "corporation" cannot breath, use a voting machine, have the 1st amendment right of free speech, yada yada yada. Not true.

Lets look at the short version legal definition of a corporation:

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person.

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ed. 1856



Now lets look at the short version legal definition of a person:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ed. 1856

And the definition of a person in the Uniform Commercial Code Article 1;; Part 2;1-201:

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Cornell Law



Now you say, how does that make me a corporation? Look at any of your "legal" documents, eg. drivers license, social security card, etc...you will find it in ALL CAPS.

As to the question of whether or not this makes you a corporation; it does not make "you" a "corporation" since "you" are a flesh and blood living soul. Corporations exist only as "legal fictions". However, if you step forward and speak for the legal fiction, ALL CAP, corporation, you assume its place. This has nothing to do with having a business or company "incorporated".

Wiki Answers



So a 'Corporation' or 'You' can have a 1st Amendment right to free speech or spend as much money as they want on campaign contributions.

Do I like it? NO but it is constitutional.

How did all this come to be, you ask? You can blame the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution after the 'Civil War' for that. You can read about it here. I strongly suggest you do.
PAC Dual System of Law.pdf


Now about Persephone. Why did I put that picture at the top of the thread?

Take a look here:The Architect of the Capitol

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5894c588ee2c.jpg[/atsimg]



There is also another version of her here








[edit on 26-1-2010 by timewalker]

[edit on 26-1-2010 by timewalker]

corporations aren't people, they are an entity whose direction and philosophy are governed and transfered to the rest of the organization by the corporate board and especially the ceo. if you don't have free speech within the corporation how can the corporation be entitled to the same privilages it denies its employees. dont believeme cc an email to all employees stating that in your opinion the board should fire the ceo. see how long u last.

Yes, you are onto something, infact here is a good example,

Pull out your Identification.

Is your named spelled, JOHN JAMES DOE? or JOHN J. DOE?

Or is it spelled John James Doe? or John Doe?

Spelling means everything, believe it or not.

The Capital letter names are reffered to as entities and are known to be corporations, meaning everyone that is a U.S. Citizen has one.

The Second spelling of your name is given by your birth mother and father which is then registered and input into the system. Which then you obtain social security and other legal documents.

The Corporate Entity is also known as a straw man from where I don't recall, but I'm sure if people look they can find something.




[edit on 25-1-2010 by Quickfix]

reply to post by randomname

AHH. But law is word magic. If you read the "legal" definition of the term, it specifically says they ARE.


Let me correct that. It says "and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person". More word magic.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by Quickfix
Straw man is correct. I really like the 2nd definition in Websters. Right on the money.

1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Websters

[edit on 25-1-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by timewalker


Ok, so, if we are in fact considered a corporation when our names are in ALL CAPS, then can I un-incorporate myself? If I no longer want to be seen or viewed as a corporation, does that mean I don't need to worry about my student loans or paying my taxes?

reply to post by leira7
Yes. Do the research. Loans maybe not.
2nd

reply to post by timewalker


Excellent layout timewalker. Will be using your thread on any further propagandist threads.

Well done.

I've been looking for this info odd thing is whenever someone shares it online you stop hearing from them.
If we could only put all the info required in 1 place condensed to a simpler form perhaps for those of us less literate in the "law"
Great thread!

reply to post by endisnighe
Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it.

reply to post by timewalker


Thank you Timewalker for this most compelling post. I would like to, if I may, enter this fray and add my two cents. I would first like to thank you for pointing out the sheer arrogance and utter problem with the 14th Amendment. I have spoken to this problem in other threads only to be called a racist and bigot because I had the audacity to point out that the 14th Amendment is horrible legislation.

Allow me to explain. The 14th Amendment deems to grant rights, presumably to those who had been recently freed due to the most necessary 13th Amendment. It is an arrogant effort in that it supposes that rights are something that can be granted by governments rather than being what they are, which is natural and unalienable. Unalienable means they are non negotiable. Any government that can grant rights can take them away. Unalienable rights are freedoms that can not be taken away. Thus, governments have no legal authority to grant rights.

Is this merely my opinion or is it a law, which would then make it self evident. Consider that all people preexist governments. Governments did not bring about the existence of people it was the other way around. Governments exist by grant of the people. Consider further the language of the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America. It is clear when reading this that it is We the People who have come together to form a more perfect union and We the People who have ordained this government. Such ordination did not come about so that which we ordained could grant us freedom.

There is unfortunate language within the Constitution that is known as the "three-fifths" compromise which will forever and a day remain an ominous black mark upon it. Indeed, such a compromise only illustrates all that is wrong with compromise and when it comes to an individuals rights no one should ever dare consider compromising. The "three-fifths" compromise was a Faustian pact made between the Northern "anti-slave" states and the Southern slave states. I place quotations around anti-slave only to acknowledge that it was only some Northern states that were vehemently against slavery while others more tacit in their approval of the Souths dubious economy based on slavery.

This compromise was forged to guarantee a federal government by Constitution ratified by all 13 states. What was agreed upon, was that the Southern States could count each of their slaves as "three-fifths" of a whole person in terms of apportionment. This gave the more sparsely populated Southern States more parity with the more densely populated Northern States. However, it was because the Southern States were so unwilling to acknowledge that those they held in slavery were people instead of property, that made their populations less equal to the Northern States.

Thus, the Constitution ambiguously defined slaves, primarily being black people imported from Africa, as being only three-fifths of a whole person. This ridiculous compromise is part of the reason the 14th Amendment was written. Another reason was in reaction to the Dred Scott ruling which itself, much like many SCOTUS rulings, has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. The Dred Scott case is primarily a question of jurisdiction and its primary holding was that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Mr. Scott's complaints because he was not a citizen of The United States and as such had no right to a redress of grievances before that Court.

There was more than this held in that case but I mention this because this holding was also a reason the 14th Amendment was written, to in effect, overturn that ruling. Based upon the 13th Amendment alone, newly freed slaves found themselves in a precarious predicament and had no legal recourse in a court of law based upon the Dred Scott ruling. The 14th Amendment sought to grant them citizenship to correct this error. However, that Amendment goes beyond granting citizenship it deigns to grant rights that these freed slaves had all along. They always had the same rights as those who called themselves their masters and the act of slavery is and has always been repugnant to freedom.

There are many flaws with the 14th Amendment and its own ambiguity in terms of "granting" granting rights has led to many legal challenges of subsequent legislation that has only confused the matter even more. One of those confusions has led to corporations relying upon this Amendment to enjoy the rights and privileges of any other citizen.

To further the confusion is the whole idea of incorporation itself. Incorporating is a statutorily defined action that does not happen by natural process but happens through the machinations of men and women. Corporations are every bit as much an artifice as are governments. Yet governments have certain rights and so too should corporations, otherwise why would anyone incorporate? Certainly corporations have the right to contract, otherwise how could they do business? Further, in order for corporations to comply with existing laws, some person somewhere must petition the government for rulings and decisions on said actions. As such, that representative of a corporation in effect is acting as the flesh and blood equivalent of the corporation itself.

When corporations disobey the law, and with that are faced with imprisonment, it is not the actual corporation itself that is convicted but the corporate officers that represent that corporation at the time the crime was committed. Jeffrey Skilling and the Rigas family of John and Timothy are examples of flesh and blood people who are currently residing in prison due to corporate malfeasance. The doctrine of corporate person hood is a strange and even disturbing doctrine, and anyone with a rational mind and reasonable temperament can see that it is self evident that the building that stands as a corporation, or the piece of paper that serves as its charter is not in any way a "person", but due to the complexity of this arrangement, certain rights to this entity do exist.

That said, there are notions that corporate person hood was a right granted to corporations by the Supreme Court. This is not true, and while in certain rulings, such as Santa Clara County, it was remarked upon as dicta that that court was inclined to believe that corporations were "persons" but this dicta was not holding and since it was not held it was not any law "made" by jurists. Even so, there have been subsequent rulings that incorrectly held and even cited as authority that Santa Clara County held what was merely dicta. Are you beginning to understand the complexity of the confusion?

To even further the confusion is the recent rhetoric put out by hysterical people who are incensed at the current Citizens United Court that struck down as unconstitutional the BCFR section 441b. Much of this debate has kept its focus on whether or not a corporation is a "person" when this point is entirely moot. The reason SCOTUS struck down 441b as unconstitutional was based upon the 1st Amendment which forbids Congress from making any laws that would abridge the freedom of speech. This Amendment does not make any distinctions as to who or what has the right to speech, it simply forbids congress from making any laws prohibiting, restricting or regulating it.

Law should not be as confusing as it has become and much of the reason it has become so confusing is because those presumed to know the law, that would you and I, have become too ignorant of it. We can make excuses that we can not understand what is too confusing to understand, but law is not confusing, legislation can be, but statutes, codes and ordinances are not law merely evidence of law. The law itself is self evident, and what is not evident is probably not law.

I'm out of space...I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What most do not realize, myself included until recently, that the 14th amendment makes all 'citizens' of the United States who are voting, participants in a rebellion of the State AKA Nation they were born in. Quietly keeping the Federal Government and the States in a perpetual state of war.
Pledging allegiance to the United States does the same. This makes you a belligerent and the folks running the Federal government insurgents. In reality you should be pledging allegiance to the State in the Union you were born in. In my case Texas.

14th amendment section 2

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Cornell Law U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution Article IV section IV is how this 'quiet war' is enforced.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Cornell Law U.S. Constitution

Hence Police State.

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ed. 1856

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ed. 1856

[edit on 28-1-2010 by timewalker]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That said, there are notions that corporate person hood was a right granted to corporations by the Supreme Court. This is not true, and while in certain rulings, such as Santa Clara County, it was remarked upon as dicta that that court was inclined to believe that corporations were "persons" but this dicta was not holding and since it was not held it was not any law "made" by jurists.

Just wanted to add that my interpretation is that there was no precedence in courts, it was merely written into the 14th and with that birthed the monster.
An unstoppable all consuming monster. Bringer of Destruction.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by timewalker]

Star and flag for you Timewalker ! An excellent discourse and an asset in link appropriation!

The Constitutional website gives detailed arguments for every day legal issues regarding items including Letters of Marque and resistance to unlawful arrest, even to the point of the loss of life of an officer involved in unlawful arrest.

Information like this will guarantee an organization of unrest finding itself conscripting on call and on the fly legal assistance ready to pursue legal rebuttal in the wake of supposed 'unlawful' actions, initiated in support of Constitutional defense, against an illegal operation currently in progress.

Some folks think that it's still business as usual, and can follow the precedents laid out by former administrations in the practice of impeachable offenses and treasonous issuances of Constitutional violations against the people of America. When the safety gets taken off of the militia's gun, they'll understand that they were wrong to assume America is ripe for the picking.

Just wanted to add this:

US CODE: Title 28, § 3002 Definitions

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by timewalker]