Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: John Chester: Family of Stuart...pls answer

Expand Messages
  • rebel382003
    I believe your concern over distinctions between corporations and individuals, resting upon a few words of an 1824 adjudication over a federal incorporated
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I believe your concern over distinctions between corporations and
      individuals, resting upon a few words of an 1824 adjudication over a
      federal incorporated bank that was put out of existence by President
      Jackson, is a bit archaic.

      Perhaps the words of the SC in LEHNHAUSEN v. LAKE SHORE AUTO PARTS
      CO.
      410 U.S. 356 (1973) would be more relevant.

      "Approval of the treatment with that separateness which distinguishes
      public service corporations from others, ibid., leads us to conclude
      in
      the present cases that making corporations and like entities, but not
      individuals, liable for ad valorem taxes on personal property does
      not transcend the requirements of equal protection." id 356.

      Citizens have rights; corporations have privileges.



      Reb.
      ******************************************




      , "goldilucks" <goldilucks@...> wrote:
      >
      > You're going to have to work for these. Question 1:
      >
      > Please go ahead and show us what you purport to be in the following
      > citation-"My favorite sentence out of all of these cases is on the
      > second page of OSBORN vs. BANK OF THE US. The judge actually states
      > that he thinks it would ridiculous to presume that people are
      > corporations since then the court would have the power to treat
      > everyone as if they have no rights." Pls highlight the verbage
      which
      > you perceive to outline what you just stated...
      >
      > http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/738/case.html
      >
    • Virgil Cooper
      I think the question of how corporations are distinguished from natural, living, human beings was addressed disingenuously, that is, very stealthily and
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I think the question of how corporations are distinguished from
        natural, living, human beings
        was addressed disingenuously, that is, very stealthily and
        underhanded in City of San Mateo v.
        Southern Pacific Railroad. What the Supreme Court accomplished
        by judicial fiat and without so much
        as a shot being fired or a drop of blood being shed has gone
        unchallenged for over one hundred years.
        See County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U.S.
        138 (1885). I did a Google search on
        this case and found an interesting commentary on “Corporation as
        Person” at the following URL:

        www.ecologycenter.org/tfs/lesson.php?id=13480
        <http://www.ecologycenter.org/tfs/lesson.php?id=13480>

        The commentary includes some historical background and context. I remember
        reading this case about
        fifteen years ago. Buried in a head note or possibly a footnote is a
        comment (I think it was by an aide to
        one of the justices): “Is a corporation to be considered a person within the
        meaning of the Fourteenth
        Amendment? We think so.” With that brief note, corporations were conferred
        “personhood”. As I recall,
        that note is not in the body or text of the decision. However, corporations
        got what they were after, and were
        off and running as having the same “rights” as individuals – confused by the
        Fourteenth Amendment. The
        Fourteenth Amendment does not have (nor has it ever had) any effect on
        Preamble Americans. The problem is that
        corporations became the dominant economic entity and the natural individuals
        have allowed or acquiesced
        themselves to being subordinate (now treated as “human resources” or as mere
        “expendables”) by corporations. As a
        result of this “legal evolution”, there now is a presumption that ALL
        Americans are “persons” within the meaning
        of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is called a “universally applied
        presumption in the law.” However, it is
        a rebuttable presumption. It has to be objected to timely and accompanied
        by an Offer of Proof to substantiate the
        objection supported by appropriate evidence, testimony, or affidavit.
        Several of us in the Phoenix constitutional
        research group spent the better part of a week going through the Arizona
        Revised Statutes looking for all definitions
        of “person”. We found “person” defined about 150 times or places. All of
        the definitions of “person” combined
        natural and artificial into one consolidated definition, obviously under the
        Fourteenth Amendment. A few of the
        definitions of “person” included the word or words “human” or “human being”.
        When you read the San Mateo v.
        Southern Pacific RR case, and find the above referenced “note”, ask yourself
        “Cui Bono” (who benefits; whose
        palm was greased; did money pass under the table, so to speak?)

        Best regards from Virgil



        Reb responded thusly:
        I believe your concern over distinctions between corporations and
        individuals, resting upon a few words of an 1824 adjudication over a
        federal incorporated bank that was put out of existence by President
        Jackson, is a bit archaic.

        Perhaps the words of the SC in LEHNHAUSEN v. LAKE SHORE AUTO PARTS
        CO.
        410 U.S. 356 (1973) would be more relevant.
      • rebel382003
        A CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STATUS AS A CITIZEN Virgil, continuing the thread of Stuart, has paraphrased a footnote or a headnote, perhaps by a
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          A CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STATUS AS A CITIZEN

          Virgil, continuing the thread of Stuart, has paraphrased a footnote or
          a headnote, perhaps by a law clerk, in County of San Mateo v. Southern
          Pacific Railroad, 116 U.S. 138 (1885) (his uncertainty) to suggest a
          corporation has no different legal status than that of an individual
          pursuant to the 14th. Amendment.

          It is submitted that the case cited may grant the status of an
          individual to the corporation only for the issue at bar. It is not a
          statement that there is no difference between a corporation and of a
          citizen. But then again, it was not the words of the court.

          I offer the following two lengthy paragraphs from Hale v Henkel, 201 US
          43 (1906), as a clear and definitive declaration of legal differences
          between the two forms:

          "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.
          He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His
          power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his
          neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an
          investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such
          duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
          protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by
          the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
          and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance
          with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate
          himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or
          seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the
          public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

          "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is
          presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives
          certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to
          the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers
          are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its
          charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only
          preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is
          a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and
          find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange
          anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make
          use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its
          sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and
          whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the
          corporate books and papers for that purpose. " id, 74-75.

          Quaker City Cab Co. v Pennsylvania, 277 US 389, was used for several
          years to contend corporations have the same rights as an individual.
          After numerous cases distinguished difference, Quaker City Cab Co. was
          held in disfavor by Lehnhausen v Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 US
          356.

          Citizens have rights secured by the Constitution; corporations have
          privileges granted by legislators and judges.

          Reb

          ******************************
          "Virgil Cooper" <ultrac21@...> wrote:
          >
          > I think the question of how corporations are
          distinguished from
          > natural, living, human beings
          > was addressed disingenuously, that is, very stealthily and
          > underhanded in City of San Mateo v.
          > Southern Pacific Railroad. What the Supreme Court
          accomplished
          > by judicial fiat and without so much
          > as a shot being fired or a drop of blood being shed has
          gone
          > unchallenged for over one hundred years.
          > See County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116
          U.S.
          > 138 (1885).

          SNIPPED*********************.
        • Frog Farmer
          ... That s right! ... A corporation cannot vote at the polls, or plead the fifth, as just two examples! ... I love this quote and use it often! ... If only the
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            rebel382003 wrote:

            > A CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STATUS AS A CITIZEN

            That's right!

            > It is submitted that the case cited may grant the status of an
            > individual to the corporation only for the issue at bar. It is not a
            > statement that there is no difference between a corporation and of a
            > citizen. But then again, it was not the words of the court.

            A corporation cannot vote at the polls, or plead the fifth, as just two
            examples!

            > I offer the following two lengthy paragraphs from Hale v Henkel, 201
            > US 43 (1906), as a clear and definitive declaration of legal
            > differences between the two forms:

            I love this quote and use it often!

            > "The individual may stand upon his constitutional
            > rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on
            > his private business in his own way. His power to
            > contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state
            > or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
            > open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may
            > tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the
            > state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond
            > the protection of his life and property. His rights
            > are such as existed by the law of the land long
            > antecedent to the organization of the state,
            > and can only be taken from him by due process of law,
            > and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
            > rights are a refusal to incriminate
            > himself, and the immunity of himself and his property
            > from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the
            > law. He owes nothing to the
            > public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

            If only the American people could know these facts during every moment
            of their waking day, and act upon them with confidence!

            > "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of
            > the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the
            > benefit of the public.

            It may not be, however, and when checked, many did not follow through on
            all the necessary steps in the process of incorporation. Only those
            with a stake or something to lose ever check that aspect out, and most
            of those people don't take the trouble either, thinking, "I saw their ad
            on TV; they MUST be legitimate!" Hahahaha!

            > It receives certain special privileges and franchises,

            As opposed to rights.

            > and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the
            > limitations of its charter.

            Unlike my rights!

            > Its powers are limited by law.

            My rights are too innumerable to be covered by law. As proof, just look
            at all the next year's legislation that will be written in attempts to
            take more of them away.

            > It can make no contract not authorized by its
            > charter.

            But who cares about THAT!? Hahahaha! People get whatever they permit.

            > Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation
            > are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws
            > of its creation.

            Or so long as they go violating them unnoticed or unopposed.

            > There is a reserved right in the legislature to
            > investigate its contracts and find out whether it
            > has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange
            > anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a
            > corporation to make use of certain franchises,
            > could not, in the exercise of its
            > sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been
            > employed, and whether they had been abused, and
            > demand the production of the
            > corporate books and papers for that purpose. " id, 74-75.
            >

            "There is a reserved right in the toolbox of a Frog Farmer to
            investigate his contracts and find out whether anyone contending against
            him has exceeded their powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold
            that a state citizen, having chartered a procedure (constitution) for
            elevating neighbors to officers to make use of certain franchises and
            powers, could not, in the exercise of his sovereignty, inquire how these
            franchises had been obtained and employed, and whether they had been
            abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for
            that purpose. (certified copies of oaths of office and other required
            bona fide documentation required to be on file by law."
            - 1 FF 007; 2 PAM 51; MacDonald v. County of Sonoma.

            > Citizens have rights secured by the Constitution; corporations have
            > privileges granted by legislators and judges.

            This is why, if it's not a life-threatening emergency that requires the
            immediate orders of a magistrate to subdue a "just following orders"
            type goon, a "formal" "docketed" "administrative hearing" "on the
            record" is the preferable course of action (short of forgetting the
            whole thing and everyone going home), scheduled for the convenience of
            all parties to minimize wasted time and resources, and at that meeting,
            I will take the First Step of letting the record reflect my human nature
            and the SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY of mistaking me in any way to be a
            corporation or of partaking in any corporate privileges. This is a
            presumption rarely ever challenged (and rarely ever true for most
            Americans anymore). Once it has been done, one has a lot more leverage
            over his opponents, who most likely cannot rationally discuss any
            issues.

            "Don't ever change, people,
            Even if you can.
            You are your own best toy to play with;
            remote control hands
            Made for each other, made in Japan.
            Woman with a greasy heart,
            automatic man,
            Don't ever change, people,
            your face will hit the fan.
            Don't ever change, people,
            even if you can.
            Don't change before the empire falls;
            You'll laugh so hard you'll crack the walls"

            - Grace Slick, "Greasy Heart"

            Regards,

            FF
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.