Corporation Personhood Status

[wake_up_bomb]

THE CORPORATION [3/23] A Legal "Person" - YouTube

THE CORPORATION [3/23] A Legal "Person" - YouTube

[reverendjim]

"no soul to save...no body to incarcerate". yep....but then, since most people dont seem to have a soul to save these days...or care for that matter....they are just fine with it. lol, i'm sure we'll here from them how the corporation has improved the world.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by reverendjim

"no soul to save...no body to incarcerate". yep....but then, since most people dont seem to have a soul to save these days...or care for that matter....they are just fine with it. lol, i'm sure we'll here from them how the corporation has improved the world.

Well, I think most people are quite confused about the state of the world. They either think they live in a functioning democracy, or else they've long since been convinced to associate their standard of living and identity with corporate products. Or both.

[wake_up_bomb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_comp...te_personality

English law recognised long ago that a corporation would have "legal personality". Legal personality simply means the entity is the subject of legal rights and duties. It can sue and be sued. Historically, municipal councils (such as the Corporation of London) or charitable establishments would be the primary examples of corporations. In 1612, Sir Edward Coke remarked in the Case of Sutton's Hospital,[26]

“the Corporation itself is only in abstracto, and resteth onely in intendment and consideration of the Law; for a Corporation aggregate of many is invisible, immortal, & resteth only in intendment and consideration of the Law; and therefore it cannot have predecessor nor successor. They may not commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate, for they have no souls, neither can they appear in person, but by Attorney. A Corporation aggregate of many cannot do fealty, for an invisible body cannot be in person, nor can swear, it is not subject to imbecilities, or death of the natural, body, and divers other cases. ”

Without a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned,[27] a corporation does not itself suffer penalties administered by courts, but those who stand to lose their investments will. A company will, as a separate person, be the first liable entity for any obligations its directors and employees create on its behalf.[28] If a company does not have enough assets to pay its debts as they fall due, it will be insolvent - bankrupt. Unless an administrator (someone like an auditing firm partner, usually appointed by creditors on a company's insolvency) is able to rescue the business, shareholders will lose their money, employees will lose their jobs and a liquidator will be appointed to sell off any remaining assets to distribute as much as possible to unpaid creditors. Yet if business remains successful, a company can persist forever,[29] even as the natural people who invest in it and carry out its business change or pass away.

Most companies adopt limited liability for their members, seen in the suffix of "Ltd" or "plc". This means that if a company does go insolvent, unpaid creditors cannot (generally) seek contributions from the company's shareholders and employees, even if shareholders and employees profited handsomely before a company's fortunes declined or would bear primary responsibility for the losses under ordinary civil law principles. The liability of a company itself is unlimited (companies have to pay all they owe with the assets they have), but the liability of those who invest their capital in a company is (generally) limited to their shares, and those who invest their labour can only lose their jobs.[30] However, limited liability acts merely as a default position. It can be "contracted around", provided creditors have the opportunity and the bargaining power to do so.[31] A bank, for instance, may not lend to a small company unless the company's director gives her own house as security for the loan (e.g., by mortgage). Just as it is possible for two contracting parties to stipulate in an agreement that one's liability will be limited in the event of contractual breach, the default position for companies can be switched back so that shareholders or directors do agree to pay off all debts. If a company's investors do not do this, so their limited liability is not "contracted around", their assets will (generally) be protected from claims of creditors. The assets are beyond reach behind the metaphorical "veil of incorporation".

References:

(26) Case of Sutton's Hospital -

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

(27) The turn of phrase used in Northern Counties Securities Ltd v Jackson & Steeple Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 1133, per Walton J, "Mr. Price argued that, in effect, there are two separate sets of persons in whom authority to activate the company itself resides. Quoting the well known passages from Viscount Haldane LC in

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

[1915] AC 705, he submitted that the company as such was only a juristic figment of the imagination, lacking both a body to be kicked and a soul to be damned." n.b. Lord Haldane never used such figurative words. They may trace back to Lord Chancellor Thurlow (1731–1806), who is said to have asked rhetorically, "did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked?" Though it seems his exact phrase was, "Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like." John Poynder, Literary Extracts (1844) vol 1, p 2 or 268

(28) For a very old example, see Edmunds v Brown and Tillard (1668) 83 ER 385-387

(29) It is highly improbable in practice that companies lifespans are longer than an average person's. Of the 100 largest global companies in 1912, 48 had gone by 1995, see L Hannah, 'Marshall's Trees and the Global Forest: Were Giant Redwoods Different?' in N Lamoreaux et al (eds), Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms and Countries (1998), pp. 253, 259

(30) See

Insolvency Act 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insolvency Act 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Insolvency Act 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s 74(2)(d) in the case of a company limited by shares, no contribution is required from any member exceeding the amount (if any) unpaid on the shares in respect of which he is liable as a present or past member'.

(31) See generally, P. L. Davies (Clarendon 2002), chapter 4.

[alisa2]

Don't believe everything you read, especially if it has anything to do with law. The real law is the SPOKEN word. See youtube video with Lisa Harrison interviewing Frank O'Collins.

Here we have British legal scholar, Sir William Blackstone, dividing the word person into two categories: natural and artificial. Excuse me? Since when were persons ever artificial? Answer: Since Blackstone said they were- that's when. Persons became natural and artificial by a flick of a pen.



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...s/v1ch3s3.html


Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.

[alisa2]

Roman civil law, etc. :

Frank O'Collins with Lisa Harrison - YouTube

Frank O'Collins with Lisa Harrison - YouTube

[alisa2]

The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword (Spoken Word) came from Edward Bulwer-Lytton's play entitled Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy (1839)

From Wiki:

"The pen is mightier than the sword" is a metonymic adage coined by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 for his play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy.[1][2] The play was about Cardinal Richelieu, though in the author's words "license with dates and details... has been, though not unsparingly, indulged."[1] The Cardinal's line in Act II, scene II, was more fully:[3]

True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!

The play opened at London's Covent Garden Theatre on 7 March 1839 with William Charles Macready in the lead role.[4] Macready believed its opening night success was "unequivocal"; Queen Victoria attended a performance on 14 March.[4]

In 1870, literary critic Edward Sherman Gould wrote that Bulwer "had the good fortune to do, what few men can hope to do: he wrote a line that is likely to live for ages."[2] By 1888 another author, Charles Sharp, feared that repeating the phrase "might sound trite and commonplace".[5] The Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, which opened in 1897, has the adage decorating an interior wall.[6][7] Though Bulwer's phrasing was novel, the idea of communication surpassing violence in efficacy had numerous predecessors.

[wake_up_bomb]

Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011 - YouTube

Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011 - YouTube

[alisa2]

Chomsky is a creation of the establishment. At the end of the video he suggests that the solution to the corporate personhood problem a constitutional amendment or legislation. What part of the Constitution would be amended if the Constitution does not mention corporations at all. Even the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with corporations.


http://www.freeworldfilmworks.com/fwaindia-chomsky.htm

[moobs]

Originally Posted by alisa2

Chomsky is a creation of the establishment. At the end of the video he suggests that the solution to the corporate personhood problem a constitutional amendment or legislation. What part of the Constitution would be amended if the Constitution does not mention corporations at all. Even the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with corporations.

Amending the Constitution isn't done by literally changing each part of the text that doesn't support your position. The way it works is that you simply write down whatever it is that you want to happen and list it at the end of the Constitution, where it will be given priority over anything preceding it.

[alisa2]

Originally Posted by moobs

Amending the Constitution isn't done by literally changing each part of the text that doesn't support your position. The way it works is that you simply write down whatever it is that you want to happen and list it at the end of the Constitution, where it will be given priority over anything preceding it.

Okkkkkkay. If you say so.

[jlord]

An addition to the constitution is still normally referred to as an amendment because you are amending the existing constitution by adding an additional clause.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by alisa2

Chomsky is a creation of the establishment. At the end of the video he suggests that the solution to the corporate personhood problem a constitutional amendment or legislation. What part of the Constitution would be amended if the Constitution does not mention corporations at all. Even the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with corporations.


http://www.freeworldfilmworks.com/fwaindia-chomsky.htm

I don't agree by any means with everything Chomsky says, but I do rate his views highly as he has produced probably the best documentation of US foreign policy over the last fifty years.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moobs

Amending the Constitution isn't done by literally changing each part of the text that doesn't support your position. The way it works is that you simply write down whatever it is that you want to happen and list it at the end of the Constitution, where it will be given priority over anything preceding it.

Thank you. You have a good grasp of American government. An amendment supersedes the Constitution.

[moobs]

Originally Posted by alisa2

Okkkkkkay. If you say so.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with this post. Shock? Skepticism?

[wake_up_bomb]

Thom Hartmann: It all boils down to "corporate personhood" - YouTube

Thom Hartmann: It all boils down to "corporate personhood" - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

Dennis Kucinich - corporate personhood - 10 questions - YouTube

Dennis Kucinich - corporate personhood - 10 questions - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

Corporate Personhood Has To Go - YouTube

Corporate Personhood Has To Go - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

TalkingStickTV - Jeff Reifman - End Corporate Personhood Seattle - YouTube

TalkingStickTV - Jeff Reifman - End Corporate Personhood Seattle - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

Supreme Court says NO! to Corporate Personhood in MT - YouTube

Supreme Court says NO! to Corporate Personhood in MT - YouTube