The fact that so many municipalities have passed resolutions to abolish "corporate personhood" and with overwhelming public support is a testament to the ignorance of the public and their representatives. Corporate personhood is not a court created precedent. "Persons" are legally defined as "corporations", not the other way around. When you check the box that says "U.S. Person", what does that mean, a U.S. person? Microsoft is also a "U.S. person", and so was Standard Oil, long before this court decision. You are not a person, you are a human. Your citizen is a person, known sometimes as a "strawman", an artificial, legal entity equivalent to a corporation. You can't remove a corporations personhood, because they are legal synonyms. To fight humanity's corporatization, learn to re-write the contracts you are party to (e.g. citizenship), and reclaim control of your U.S. citizen/person/strawman/legal entity. Then it, too, can be an unaccountable corporation, and you can take your place as grantor and beneficiary of the trust that created it, with the U.S. as the trustee, assigned with carrying out your designs with regard to the trust (your citizen) and delivering to you the benefits and obligations of operating a person in public commerce.
Brian, with all due respect, your comment has a lot of legal jargon but makes no sense. Where are "persons" defined as "corporations?" Corporate personhood is absolutely a court-created concept. You are right in noting that the doctrine dates back to the heyday of Standard Oil, but how does that negate Move to Amend's agenda of seeking to expressly deny certain (human/civil) rights, such as free speech, to entities that exist solely due to a state-granted charter?
On Friday we had an article published on Common Dreams, titled "Movement to Abolish Corporate Personhood Gaining Traction." Our piece quickly climbed to the "most popular" article on the site, and it remains there as of today!
As a result traffic to our web site over the weekend was a bit overwhelming, and we apologize for the slow speed caused by so many viewers. But the good news is that we gained 5,000+ new signatures for our petition (welcome new folks!) as the article was shared and re-posted widely across the internet and the blogosphere.
Please help us keep the momentum by sharing the article with your friends and allies, and posting it to your Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
The rights that persons and corporations have are civil rights, not human rights, because "persons" and "corporations", don't refer to "humans", but are legal fictions, part of the legal structure, like trusts. The Supreme Court decision is affirming, not creating, this definition of "person". I understand this information is somewhat esoteric. Links on my profile to some hopefully helpful clarifications if it is of any interest. In my opinion this is a misunderstanding based on the mystification of the nature of national and international legal structures. Operating over and above the commonly cited, political and statutory laws of nations, are international legal frameworks based upon commercial and admiralty law structures. The "Sovereign Man" movement has been maligned as basically militaristic, but it is based on real researches and demystification of global legal structures. The sad fact is that rather than corporations being elevated to the level of a person-hood aka "human", the human has been lured into "person"-hood, or corporatization, mistaking the name and account number(SS#) with the man or woman (or Spirit) him or her or Itself. Thus, humans don't have human rights, but they have civil rights, and civil responsibilities, like public debt burdens.
"Banish the word 'struggle' from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.
We are the ones we have been waiting for." — Hopi elders
Steve
Silliness
The fact that so many municipalities have passed resolutions to abolish "corporate personhood" and with overwhelming public support is a testament to the ignorance of the public and their representatives. Corporate personhood is not a court created precedent. "Persons" are legally defined as "corporations", not the other way around. When you check the box that says "U.S. Person", what does that mean, a U.S. person? Microsoft is also a "U.S. person", and so was Standard Oil, long before this court decision. You are not a person, you are a human. Your citizen is a person, known sometimes as a "strawman", an artificial, legal entity equivalent to a corporation. You can't remove a corporations personhood, because they are legal synonyms. To fight humanity's corporatization, learn to re-write the contracts you are party to (e.g. citizenship), and reclaim control of your U.S. citizen/person/strawman/legal entity. Then it, too, can be an unaccountable corporation, and you can take your place as grantor and beneficiary of the trust that created it, with the U.S. as the trustee, assigned with carrying out your designs with regard to the trust (your citizen) and delivering to you the benefits and obligations of operating a person in public commerce.
??
Brian, with all due respect, your comment has a lot of legal jargon but makes no sense. Where are "persons" defined as "corporations?" Corporate personhood is absolutely a court-created concept. You are right in noting that the doctrine dates back to the heyday of Standard Oil, but how does that negate Move to Amend's agenda of seeking to expressly deny certain (human/civil) rights, such as free speech, to entities that exist solely due to a state-granted charter?
From the Move to Amend website:
On Friday we had an article published on Common Dreams, titled "Movement to Abolish Corporate Personhood Gaining Traction." Our piece quickly climbed to the "most popular" article on the site, and it remains there as of today!
As a result traffic to our web site over the weekend was a bit overwhelming, and we apologize for the slow speed caused by so many viewers. But the good news is that we gained 5,000+ new signatures for our petition (welcome new folks!) as the article was shared and re-posted widely across the internet and the blogosphere.
Please help us keep the momentum by sharing the article with your friends and allies, and posting it to your Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
See Black's Law, U.S. Constitution
The rights that persons and corporations have are civil rights, not human rights, because "persons" and "corporations", don't refer to "humans", but are legal fictions, part of the legal structure, like trusts. The Supreme Court decision is affirming, not creating, this definition of "person". I understand this information is somewhat esoteric. Links on my profile to some hopefully helpful clarifications if it is of any interest. In my opinion this is a misunderstanding based on the mystification of the nature of national and international legal structures. Operating over and above the commonly cited, political and statutory laws of nations, are international legal frameworks based upon commercial and admiralty law structures. The "Sovereign Man" movement has been maligned as basically militaristic, but it is based on real researches and demystification of global legal structures. The sad fact is that rather than corporations being elevated to the level of a person-hood aka "human", the human has been lured into "person"-hood, or corporatization, mistaking the name and account number(SS#) with the man or woman (or Spirit) him or her or Itself. Thus, humans don't have human rights, but they have civil rights, and civil responsibilities, like public debt burdens.
It's all samsara anyway
Dust in the wind, one more structure to blow away with the sands of time.