Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats!
Men do not wield or submit to sovereignty. They wield or submit to authority or power. Authority and power are facts as old and ubiquitous as society itself. . . . Although we talk of [sovereignty] loosely as something concrete which may be lost or acquired, eroded or increased, sovereignty is not a fact.
If it is the Court’s claim that sovereignty is not only a fact of our political-legal world, but a fact to be encouraged, this claim will require substantiation: it is by no means self-evident that governments we create can enjoy the predicate “sovereign.” Even assuming such a possibility, does it make even a modicum of sense to suppose that what can be hemmed in by “Amendments” is actually “sovereign?” Can the claim of sovereignty be sustained?
The following are just the first three pages of what is 22 pages long. I hope you find it of interest and I’d be pleased to get your feedback. It’s your interest that spurs me on. If it’s not there I’ll lose interest myself. I hope, through all of this, to not only make it clear to those who pour scorn over this issue that they are wholly ignorant, but also to allow me to demonstrate, here and there, through referral to the text, how the legal person con affects us all.
So the “person” is either, metaphysical or a “convenient device”. While jurists (i.e. the legal profession) can’t even agree on which BUT they will prosecute you as being such.
The sheer fact that this essay needs to be written proves that the legal person is a fiction. Either way, “metaphysical” or not, it is the conjuring up of an entity for the basis of another entity being able to control it and dictate the rules it must live by (and we’re not talking just the rules of any sane individual here as, for example “thou shall not kill”. “Puzzling”, “uncertainty” AND “inconsistency” rules the day when it comes to the legal person! And it is the inconsistency part which provides us all with the most trouble as the state applies rules to various types and classes of “legal person” as they so desire. While courts and legislators just apply the rules in total ignorance of what they are applying such rules to! Ambiguity.
I guess ambiguity was the term of the day when Jade Jacob Brooks was not bestowed any human rights then. They couldn’t decide whether she was a human or not because she did not exist as a “legal person”.
It is a conceptual analysis because the “Legal Person” is conceptual in of itself! It is a concept – nothing more, nothing less but, as they say “Perhaps the greatest political act of law is the making of the legal person” – NOTE: It does not say the EXISTENCE OF it says the MAKING OF! The point there being this: As soon as you are born (or perhaps even conceived), you EXIST – or are there some of you out there who would argue that? BUT, while you EXIST (as a living, breathing human being), it does not necessarily mean that you have been made into a PERSON – a LEGAL PERSON. And that is PRECISELY why Jade Jacob Brooks was (wrongly) described as having NOT EXISTED. To describe her as such was, on one hand, to the legal profession’s benefit however, on the other hand, it wasn’t in that it proved a dichotomy for them. How can a HUMAN exist but NOT be provided HUMAN RIGHTS?
The answer to that is then simple: HUMAN rights is a misnomer. HUMAN rights do not exist. LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS do!. One can only be given these rights IF one acquiesce’s to the system which offers them. However, in acquiescence to that system, one is then saying “Yes I will abide by ALL of your rules and yes, you can apply rules to me which are obviously discriminatory and corrupt”. For example, when it comes to employment law. An employment contract is what?
IT IS A CONTRACT. Law of contract already exists and, within such law, it is perfectly capable of handling ANY dispute in ANY type of contract. BUT the Banks and Corporations (as employers) do not WISH to allow people to enforce the law of contract so what have they done? They have had governments provide THEM with “LEGAL PERSONHOOD” with the ‘same’ “rights and privileges and duties” as you and I as actual HUMANS (referred to as “natural persons”) while, then using what is, in fact, discrimination to then provide benefits to employers (corporations) because, in law – as you are aware of today with the destruction of legal aid – the one with the most money is, invariably, the one who wins AND, if you do not possess enough money, you can’t even get to court now. Additionally, the corporations are protected (discrimination once more) because the state has introduced “Statutory law” – i.e. NEW rules – called “Employment law” which is STILL the law of contract but it has been corrupted for the benefit of the Corporate legal person.
With the emancipation of the slaves, they simply were given a step up on the ladder to be equal with the debt slaves whereas debt slaves, prior to their emancipation, could own slaves as property outright. The same discriminatory practice exists today when we consider the rights of homosexuals and the rights of transexuals. I would like to understand what these feminists have problems with however. What exactly is it they are not allowed to do as “legal persons” that men are? But women tend to see this “war” as a war against men yet I would submit that men genuinely do not see it and, if they do, they see it as for what it is: A war against PEOPLE by wealthier people who have indebted nations and governments and have bought their way into creating legislation just how THEY want it. It’s nothing to do with men. Theresa May and Hillary Clinton are NOT men just as Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman are NOT men! Will that stop any of them legislating against or for women? Will it hell! What steers THEIR views of anything is MONEY just as it is for their political whore peers! All of them bought off by the banking fraternity.
As you know, dolphins have legal person status now in India so the point made about animals will soon be out of date.
Corporations have “Dual status” of “persons” AND “property”. Well of course, because that gives them the flexibility they need when they need it. However, isn’t YOUR body YOUR property?
I like note 4 re slaves: The hypocrisy never ends not even today. Law is applied by the jurists and the legislature in whichever way they choose according to what is more beneficial to them at any one time.
And note 6 is a beauty and here we see the confirmation, in part, regarding the issue Jade Jacob Brooks found herself with for about 20 years of her life.
So, it is recognised fully that there is no morality within a corporation (corp(se) “dead” oration “speaking”) but it is offered the rights of us humans. The concept depends upon “analogies and dianalogies” and anything else which can be thought of to justify it!
Some jurists who believe the corporation is both legal and moral are liars because those same jurists KNOW that the entire raison d’etre of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders and that principle is upheld in courts all over the world. This is PRECISELY why Monsanto and other corporations can sue other legal persons (companies, human AND governments) for a loss of profit IF any of these other legal persons stand in the way of such profit for any MORAL reason!