Columbia Law Review supports Earthling re Human Rights and Persons

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet – but BY GOD I do when, if ever, a little Barrister shit, MP, lawyer or judge dismisses (or dares to dismiss) what I have been blogging about re the “LEGAL PERSON”.

I have challenged any and all “Legal Eagles” on this matter both, in my blogs and directly. The ONLY defence they have is a non defence and that is to simply dismiss any discussion because THEY are “Legal People” and THEY should know!

NO, I’m dreadfully sorry you little arrogant, overpaid, oath taking, incompetent fools but you are now, with this, fully put on notice. The following cannot be dismissed one iota – neither could many of my previous blogs on this subject but NOW, I have even MORE concrete agreement by your very own: THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW!

So, listen you snotty nosed, wig wearing little creeps, don’t fuck with intellect!

Setting the scene: “This suggests that it is the component concepts – NOT PERSONHOOD ITSELF – that are INDISPENSABLE for grounding our moral and legal institutions about rights.”

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. However, the Columbia Law Review goes on to explain why this is in their terms. The discussion around Davis is crucial to appreciate here. You must also recognise what a dilemma the courts are in here. The original mid level appellant court – IF such a ruling had stood – would leave President Obama today and all “family planning” (Planned Parenthood for example) centres plus others, open to charges AND prosecutions of murder and manslaughter. This is literally what the American courts were dealing with here and they could not possibly allow that decision to stand.

You must then understand this: The line between murder and not murder lies solely upon opinion and solely upon a fundamental legal concept which they must, in all respects, protect from the general public’s understanding of it. For it is this fundamental concept which not only provides them with discriminatory control regarding “what type of person you are” (e.g. citizen, subject, illegal alien, homosexual, heterosexual, pregnant woman, racial minority, religion, sex etc etc) but also the absolute power of life and death. For example, if you are NOT recognised as a PERSON, you have NO “Human Rights” today. While they bestow personhood upon inanimate bodies with NO morality whatsoever. A Corporation’s primary basis for existence is, and has always been, recognised in law as PROFIT. Such being recognised in law is PRECISELY why the Corporation (think now The Trans-atlantic Partnership Agreement) can SUE a country’s government in the courts for trampling upon its rights. It’s MAJOR “right” being to make a profit! Yet a Corporation, while the trustee(s) are the employees, the Directors and the shareholders (the latter being the real beneficiaries), the Corporation itself (nothing more than a piece of paper precisely equivalent to how you and I’s birth certificates are used) is where the interest (Right) lies.

To explain: From the University of Pennsylvania law review and American law register…

The RIght or interest is held by the Corporate person – a non living entity. A PIECE OF PAPER which has been bestowed the “right” in law, to make a profit. The CONTROL lies in the hands of those whose job it is to pursue this interest which the Corporation has and, as such, within what is called the “nexus” of their position as a representative of such a non living entity with such rights, the REAL LIVING PERSON (human being) is, effectively, given a pass to pursue such interests in whichever way he/she deems fit. The Corporate “veil” of Personhood then protects (Limited Liability) the human beings from a vast number of actual crimes they will commit on behalf of this corporation. This is why you consistently look at the news of Banks simply paying fines and those who literally, physically and with MENS REA, commit the crimes as they control the activity of the Corporation. The Corporation as an organisation of many people also allows, then, those such as Lloyd Blankfein and many others to simply say “I didn’t know”. The worst that can happen, generally, is that he would be sacked by the Corporation for negligence or incompetence. It rarely happens however and why? Because he, in fact, has pursued and achieved the very aims of the corporation/bank that the shareholders (the real beneficiaries) want.

Ok, returning to the Human side of “Human rights” and the “person”…. I hope you can see, quite clearly, the predicament the courts were in.

 

At this juncture, I would only speculate as to why the court would not wish to explicitly say that the embryos could be treated like property. As I see it, that would ALSO cause the state a very big problem because then it could be relied upon by PARENTS that the child is the PROPERTY of their parents rather than the property of the STATE.

The “first position” of the American Fertility Society (you see? it is all opinion and they need to be VERY careful which opinion they choose in every circumstance and that they leave “margins” for arguments in other cases. They cannot afford to have absolute written law with no margin for argument – it is why the US constitution, for example, is under attack – as is the UK’s). was that the embryo is a human being (subject?) directly after fertilization. It then states that such a “view” (opinion) requires that it be accorded the rights of a person. Yet, later, this journal goes on to contradict this view and, as we know, Jade Jacobs Brooks – a British teenager, a living, breathing, human being, was not accorded such rights as a person because she was not recognised by the law as a person because she did not have a valid birth certificate.

“In all three positions, the concept of the person looms large”. Indeed it does!

“the embryo’s lack of personhood justifies the withholding of rights”. Along with previous blogs with statements made by the UN, law sources etc, this, once more, provides concrete proof that, until one is recognised as a person, one has no “rights” which are, erroneously, referred to as “Human Rights”.

“The quandary encountered by the court in Davis represents a general problem within legal reasoning.” Indeed because legal “reasoning” does not allow itself to be bound by logic. It cannot afford to do so. Logic would infer solid law. Think about that for a few moments. For one thing, if there were solid laws (which there certainly could and should be but they are made slightly “gaseous” by added complexities and purposefully) then there would be no need for LAWYERS! Lawyers PRACTICE “law” and they are there to ARGUE concepts. Many of our legal cases go on and on purely to give the legal system, through the use of judges hearing “arguments”, the time to decide which OPINION (or fusion of opinions) provide the correct result for the State’s agenda. That is all this total rubbish is for.

“But these sources frequently offer conflicting guidance on the exact content of the concept of the person or its relationship to the idea of human beings.” Indeed they do and for a purpose. Meanwhile “the IDEA of human beings”? They’re suggesting even human beings are an “idea” now?

(Is person a broader category than human being or merely a synonym?) – Do you remember my blog entitled “The human rights Act deception” where I challenge the Barrister upon this very issue and prove to him that his idea of the two being synonymous is total hokum and proven hokum! The LOGIC of his stance is impossible. While it is clear that a human being is NOT a Business/Corporation I would hope you appreciate!

“Rather than illuminating human rights claims, the concept of the person often obscures them. This suggests that, despite appearances, the concept of the person is unnecessary for human rights”.

“By exploring these three categories of arguments, it becomes clear that the concept of the person cannot be the foundation for a human rights claim.”

 

 

“To take just the most obvious examples, the U.S. Constitution ascribes Fourteenth Amendment rights to persons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to human beings, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes reference to both..”

 

 

So, we arrive at another core issue: “All persons are equal before the law”. It is patently untrue and unworkable under the assumption (or concept) of “the person”. I mention in a previous blog that, according to the human rights act, one “right” is the right to be recognised AS a “person” before the law. I then point to the obvious here: If it is a “Right” then you have the “right” to WAIVE that “right”. If you are not offered that choice then it is not a right at all and they are simply lying. Which they are! However, here is the issue when it comes to, not embryos, but living, breathing human beings and “All persons are equal before the law”. It is a beautifully simple demonstration of the use of “the person” concept as a discriminatory one for purposes of control of all various “categories” of “persons”.

 

Now, you cannot possibly get any clearer than that stated above regarding Roe v Wade compared with the wrongful death cases. On one hand, the “law” treats a fetus as property belonging to the mother to do with as she wishes (within a certain timescale which is totally arbitrary and changes like the wind similar, then to whether homos are perverts and “non-persons” or the age of consent.) literally allowing her to murder her child, while, on the other hand, in the case of wrongful death, the mother (or father or any “person” causing injury to the fetus and death), with a fetus of the same age, CAN be charged with its murder. Treating the fetus, in this case, not as property of the mother but a “person” with full rights. This does nothing but prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the “law” is constantly tailored to fit the wishes of the state because the reality of all of this is, transparently, that the “person” is the PROPERTY of the state.

This is why it is madness for homosexuals to actually BEG to be recognised as “persons” with full rights by the state. They are literally begging for the slavery we are all under. Every marriage, every birth, every registration of any and all property we may own, is literally a begging to the state that our existence, our actions and our needs are recognised AND, therefore, regulated (controlled). We literally hand ourselves over as bonded property of the state and, insodoing, we give them THEIR RIGHT to treat us as they do.

WE ARE CONTRACTING WITH THEM IN TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING WHILE THEY COERCE US TO DO SO BECAUSE WE HAVE, FOR GENERATIONS, ACCEPTED AND ACQUIESCED TO SUCH, SUCH THAT, FOR THOSE WHO WILL QUESTION IT, THE VAST VAST MAJORITY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND A WORD WE SAY AND WILL DEMAND THAT WE REMAIN THE BONDED SLAVES THAT THEY ARE IN THEIR IGNORANCE. AND IT IS ALL DONE “FREELY”. FOR IF IT IS NOT, THEN UNDER LAW, ANY CONTRACT SIGNED OR ACCEPTED UNDER COERCION IS NULL AND VOID AND ANY CONTRACT WHICH IS SIGNED WHEREIN A PARTY TO THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH FULL DISCLOSURE, IS ALSO NULL AND VOID. THE PROBLEM IS FOR US WHO UNDERSTAND THIS, IS THE IGNORANT MASS AND THE FACT WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER “LAW” BUT UNDER THE FORCE (FOR THAT IS WHAT IT IS) OF A DEMOCRACY WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY MAJORITY RULE.

Does the above consider the further conflict: If the person is dead and is no longer a person, therefore possessing no rights, then from where are the rights derived when it comes to executing an estate? You may suggest that, while alive, the deceased had appointed an Executor for this BUT, the deceased is now dead and no longer exists as a person. Therefore, the Executor has no legal identity of a person to Execute for! How does an Executor execute  for a non existent person?

How do you legalise the immoral? You create another category of person: The “Brain dead”. You may then harvest their organs. This, of course, has many uses and points to many elite wishes/agendas but I’ll leave that up to you to consider. Again, however, it displays the problem and contradictions totally inherent with the concept of “person”.

 

Ah! Animals. Dolphins and India spring to mind once more. Remember when reading all of this, that none of it is arguing for any position on the basis of who and what is deserving of rights. It is simply pointing out how the arguments in each case expose the issue with the “person” as a concept. The entire journal article, therefore, pointing at the concept as one which is fundamentally flawed and used to legalise what are discriminatory opinions.

What if you have MPD and you haven’t paid your council tax? 😉 Everytime the council knock at the door, you could say the person responsible for paying it wasn’t in! When it came to court, could they make you bankrupt and/or throw you in jail if you did not present the court with “Jimmy” while the name on your birth certificate is Bob? Or vice versa. Yet, there are times when the courts literally have distinguished between one legal person and another within the same body. THINK about that!

The “law” truly is an ass! It cannot make up it’s own mind about the very fundamental concept of what it prosecutes!

 

So now we come to another “person”. A “person” which truly doesn’t exist. It is a piece of paper; a document sitting in Companies House. It has no heart, no brain, no soul. It is effectively dead but it “speaks”. It “speaks” through “mediums” called Directors and employees. They do this “spirit’s” bidding even to the extent of real human beings detriment AND to their own detriment. They give it power. They pursue its aims – not necessarily because they really care about its aims (most people hate their job) but because they, themselves are “bribed”. They receive this thing called “money” to do precisely what this document wants. The document is “dead” (non-living) but it “speaks” and acts. A corpse is dead and an orator speaks. This is why it’s called a Corporation.

What if you removed the “person” status of a Corporation? Certainly, they could still exist and operate, they just simply would not have rights. The rights (and duties) would fall to the owners/Directors and employees. Do you think, then, these Corporations would begin to act more responsibly? I think so. Real people’s necks would be on the block and, after all, it is these real people who take all the actions of the Corporation. It is not a dead document which does, it is real people with no conscience and the knowledge they are protected from prosecution to a great degree by the Corporate veil. None of this is rocket science. It is all very very simple. You’d then ask how does the corporation enter contracts and hold property etc? It doesn’t, its owner(s) does. For instance, everything in Microsoft’s name would have been owned by Bill Gates personally. All property, all employee and customer contracts made with Bill Gates NOT “Microsoft”. Of course, he could delegate the administration of all of this to others if he wished but it would be his name – not as a “Microsoft” representative, but as Bill Gates, who assumed ALL liability. Of course, the Titans of business and banking would scoff at this suggestion but only because it would scare the living daylights out of them.

Subjecting a Corporation to criminal liability simply means that it is the Corporation which is solely liable for the actions of real human beings. What can you do with a piece of paper? Throw it in jail? Burn it at the stake? Hang it with a paper clip? No, all you can do is fine it and that is all that is ever done. While those controlling it walk away having, many times, been those who have committed acts of genocide, murder, financial terrorism (resulting in deaths). As you will see above, everything a Corporation is and does is related to real people. Of course that is the case because it is real people who commit the actions and who gain or lose from such. Entire countries and peoples affected by the creation of a few words on a page.

While, I have blogged before about the fact that all states and nations (including the EU now) are “Legal persons” and if they are, then all persons are equal before the law. I have then explained how THEIR justifications of states and nations having “higher rights” than we, does not hold water because, just as it is necessary for all nations within Europe to hand over their sovereignty freely to the EU – that being a fundamental of law and law of contract, as stated earlier, would null and void any contract signed under duress – the same applies to we, the people, handing our sovereignty (that is our powers) to a nation state apparatus. Again, the legal world cannot argue against these fundamentals of their own law.

Now, you will read from the above, that the author of this piece suggests the concept of the person is essentially adequate where there is no controversy around what a person is, such as adult human being for example (however we do know, re homosexuality and transexuality etc, that there IS controversy) BUT, he goes on to mention that the person is a “cluster concept”. He omits to mention the various “clustering” (categorisation – therefore, discrimination) which is practiced throughout the legal world based upon sex, religion, colour, married status etc and that such “clustering” can (and does) have the effect of provisioning more rights to some than to others. The perfect example being the contract between an employer and employee. You may sign a contract (and a contract which has all terms laid out plainly) but the employer decides to break that contract in the knowledge that statutory law, essentially, gives no recourse to the employee unless the employee has been with the company for at least 2 years. Such a stipulation is not stated in the actual contract but the government, in their wisdom (and it is wise because they know on which side their bread is buttered) assumes control of the employer/employee situation as it does the husband/wife contract. However, IF you as an employee, happen to be a pregnant woman, a racial or sexual minority, then you have a stronger set of “tools” to fight with. These “tools” – simply being your categorisation of “person” – are effectively, increased rights.

The law, itself, is entirely discriminatory and for its own purposes and it uses the “cluster concept” of the legal person everyday and applies it to what the author suggests are obvious persons.

Please note the obvious from the above: (a), (b), © and (d) ARE synonymous with being a human being, therefore, the NEED to be referred to, or bestowed the “title” of “person” is unnecessary. Even titles such as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Dr”, “Miss” and “Ms” are not only used to denote sex but also status. The forms we are asked to fill out regarding “equal rights” – whether they be for a job application or otherwise, are there NOT to provide EQUAL rights but to administer political objectives. Once more, that clarifies the use of the “person” and the titles and categories it requires to ensure that various groups and subgroups of human beings are treated differently and NOT equal. The sheer statement that it is to ensure “equality” is a total fabrication for, with this information, the government (and the courts on the legislative’s behalf) drives positive discrimination. How many times have you heard “We need more women in government”? Or “We need more blacks in the police force”? Or “We need more gays…”, “We need more interdimensional soul rabbits”.

The PERSON and its “clustering” (categorization) is nothing more than a vehicle for social control. It promotes political aims and it suppresses the whole idea of “free market enterprise” for example and the right of choice based upon not who is best for a position but, due to statistical requirements of having a group of people – either in a corporation, the police, the government – which category one must choose in a given situation. This is fundamentally discriminatory!

The government and the courts state that discriminatory practice is unlawful BUT, it is absolutely clear: They are the worst offenders! 

“What really matters for purposes of settling a human rights claim is the biological concept of the human being”. Spot on!

But, while he doesn’t state this, it is then emphatic that “Human Rights” should not be offered to juristic persons (corporations). This then feeds back into the idea that the rights and responsibilities must sit with the “persons” (humans) who take the actions and decisions within the corporations. By providing corporations with “human rights” the world has undermined the human rights of humans! It has undermined the reality that a human life is of prime importance.

“We would then be obliged to offer a completely independent basis for granting rights to those entities.” Yes indeed! While those rights should never, at any time, be placed higher in the pecking order or conflict or suppress the human rights of human beings. But they do because of the “clustering” of the concept of “person”.

“It also produces the uncomfortable situation of arguing whether someone is a person in order to determine if he or she gets human rights.” And there you have it. Please read my blog The Human Rights Act deception and consider and review the situation which Jade Jacobs Brooks found herself in.

 

“The benefit of this view is its power to ascribe rights to group agents such as corporations and nation-states.” Note, this is ONLY a benefit to those who would wish to ascribe such rights to these assumed “persons”. There is no benefit to wider humanity in doing so as I hope I have just clarified. Also, as I have touched on, there is no need to ascribe person rights to such. Once can simply ascribe the rights and responsibilities to the humans controlling them. But remember, the author of this Columbia law review article lives within the system. Yes he questions it – and insodoing, points us to the realities – but he will never attack it substantially.

Above, the idea of “rational agency” is once again mentioned as enough to provide for rights and responsibilities. But is it? Remember, the rationality of a corporation is stated in its fundamental documents. Its rationale is to make profit. If, then, a court is convened to consider the rationality of the corporation’s actions, it is clear that the terms within the “birth certificate” of the corporation (i.e. its Article of incorporation) will be considered by the court. Its purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. Its purpose does not state that it will be or act as appropriate for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, the court will rule that, in its actions, it is acting rationally. Of course there is further complexity in this but that is the bottom line and from where the court begins in its determinations. A corporation has no soul. It has no heart. It has no humanity. The people controlling it for the benefit of the shareholders (and the shareholders themselves) are then able to pursue their greed with impunity. This is why no bankers go to jail!

 

Remember that, just as I talk about the concept of the corporation as a “person”, the same analysis can be applied to the state, government etc. Again, they are complemented by human beings who control and direct the “ship of state”. One simply needs to ask oneself: What is the goal of the state? It must have one. The vast majority of people assume it is one where their wishes are pursued by representatives. I would think, by now, that naive view is being crushed underfoot wouldn’t you? Once more however, just as there is a “corporate veil” there is an even more opaque (and protected) State veil! And why wouldn’t it protect and obscure itself? It has to. The state is a mafia plain and simple.

“Since the corporation is a valid subject of human rights – e.g., it deserves the right to property – then corporations deserve to be called persons.” But no, they do not. The writer is first assuming that corporations deserve the right to own property to come to the conclusion they deserve personhood. Step back Mr and consider your first assertion first. Who says they deserve the right to own property? Make that argument first before you use it to assert the second assumption.

 

“This does not mean that personhood is empty or should be eliminated from the lexicon of human rights dialogue;”  However the reality is that it should and every word stated by the writer clearly demonstrates this. His assertion here is simply the assertion, once more, of someone who operates within the system and simply cannot afford to state it as it should be. He is accepting of the basic ideology of the legal fiction concept of the person while, at the same time, he is making arguments which clearly show it is fundamentally flawed and is the most dangerous concept to human rights as one can get.

While here is an interesting statement: “Being married consists in certain lower level facts……the intention to raise a family together…”. No, entirely wrong. Two homosexuals do not get married with the intention of raising a family do they? Not even all heterosexuals who get married necessarily wish to raise a family. In fact, why would anyone wish to raise a family in this world as it is? If I were 25 again I would seriously consider not having children. What? To have them grow up into this system of utter control? Where the entire fabric of society is breaking down? No, I fear for my kids that I do have and that, fundamentally, is why I write this stuff. Not that they necessarily care!

 

Ah but of course the legal system wishes to recognise “Common law” marriages (whilst it ignores common law just about everywhere else and almost tries to insist that such does not exist in many aspects of law) because, with the numbers of people who are simply not married but living together, the state sees that as a loss of control. So what does it do? It preys on people’s needs and/or greed within the system which exists and has ensured such needs and greed exist by saying “We will recognise common law marriage” and those who are in such relationships think “ah! That’s nice of them”. Again similar to the now “We will recognise gay marriages”. Of COURSE they will! If they didn’t, they have no control over them. And the gays have BEGGED them to take control over their freewill!

We’re talking stupid here! Real serious ignorance and naivety. “Please legalise my actions! Please recognise them and accept our registration so you may then take control over our affairs!”

“These concepts were “infecting” legal theory because they could not be defined through experience. Cohen argued that these metaphysical concepts distract judges from seeing that their decisions are based on social policy, economics, and other extralegal considerations.” Just as I pointed out above: The law is only a reflection of social control imposed by a state/governmental agenda. Period.

“For example, biological human beings and rational agents might have different rights. Individual human beings and corporations need not be treated the same.” Whereas, as long as corporations are included within an umbrella group known as “persons”, along with human beings, then the corporation (AND the state/nation. intergovernmental legal person – UN, the EU etc) shall undermine the primacy of the human being and the human spirit. Non living entities used as vehicles by living entities who wish to have power and control over all others so as to shape the world precisely as they wish.

“Groups demanding human rights have not only used the concept of the person to achieve remarkable change…”. Yes, but once more, our author here approaches this from the standpoint of someone who sees politics (as it presently exists) as a necessity. And yet, politics IS the very vehicle of social control. Take politics out of law – eradicate it altogether – approach the question of human rights from a purely “libertarian” standpoint which states each and every human being has inherent rights and no corporation or state has the right to interfere whatsoever, then you have no need for these groups to use the vehicle of the “person” to create such change. They are using a vehicle for control to argue for rights that they should have anyhow and by arguing for the vehicle of control to recognise those rights, they are, in effect and in reality, providing that vehicle with MORE control!

 

 

The facts as stated above, confirm the fundamental truth of the matter. There is a fundamental difference/distinction between the legal person and the human being. The courts and state legislators use the former as a form of social control and for the state’s agenda.

There is a website by the name of “UKhumanrightsblog” by Crown Office Row ( http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/ ) which is attempting to demonise and target those who are understanding these concepts and how they are used. The website states this:

“The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in guardian.co.uk (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.

As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.”

It then justifies its position, in part based upon this statement by a Canadian judge:

“Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.”

 

Do you notice the obvious?

They use the very concept of the “person” to justify (and protect) the use of the “person” as their fundamental tool. 

They are effectively stating: You are a person who is challenging the concept of “person” and, because you are a person, you are not allowed to do that and, as such, you are vexatious.

There is no other way of them protecting themselves from one who challenges their most fundamental assertion. You are “vexatious” because you have them checkmated.

Trust me. Those of you who know this information are extremely powerful – not on your own – but as a group. You are exceptionally dangerous people because you are both, knowledgeable and, I would hope, peaceful. I have no idea how many of you are out there in any one country (take Britain in this instance) but IF an organisation was put together who did not “in fight” and did not argue or sweat the small stuff, but simply concentrated their efforts on this singular issue, your danger to the system which oppresses you would be formidable. Forget voting for political parties. That has no power whatsoever. THIS is what contains power!