Earthling

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats! (part 2)

person-meets-lawful-rebellion

 

Now, we’re beginning to get far more interesting. We now enter into the world of pure concept and the application of law to this concept called the “person” as a mathematical equation or statistic. We’re now at a point where there is an admission of what the “person” is and, from that, we can recognise how it is the legal system approaches its fundamental “unit” and how, therefore, the legal system can apply statute law to any and all groups which the legal system wishes to protect, elevate or otherwise. Proof, then, that you, as an individual with a mind, body and soul of your own (not to mention philosophy or morals or lack thereof) is of NO interest to the legal system. It is that very substance of our individual beings which the legal system of statutory acts cannot cope with. You MUST fall into a grouping in one way or another and in a multitude of ways, for the legal system to continue. This being the case, you can be an individual of the highest moral virtue and the legal system will dilute such to ensure you are treated the same as the worst of criminals if you just so happen to fall into the same grouping as the latter.

Essentially, then, the legal system can (and does) treat you the same way as Hitler is alleged to have treated the jews. If you are a jew, it matters not how moral you may be or even how much you may hold the same principles as a NAZI, you are a jew and you will be treated like one!

It is also like saying if you are black in America, the law enforcers are more likely to assume you to be a criminal.

Or, it is similar to saying “If you are muslim then you are most likely a terrorist”.

If you do not understand what I am saying here or my reasoning for it, I hope, in reading these pages and following the obvious intention, it will become apparent to you.

Person 4

 

Ok, let’s stop and think of just a few things here:

1. “when a case explicitly considers the legal personality of a given entity”. Think hard on what this is saying (and what we never really give much thought to). The law does not treat the “person” before a court according to that INDIVIDUAL’S personality (character). The law court simply considers the entity (Corporation, Private company, sole trader, partnership or human being of whatever race, colour, religious or political affiliation, sex, age etc) in accordance with a set of “rights and duties” which are arbitrarily assigned to such an entity based on a grouping. A perfect example of this is given in the video following where the barrister refers to this particular “person” not having much “armoury” because he is not a racial minority, homosexual or pregnant woman. It, therefore, is a prime confirmation of the grouping the law uses to determine which rights you do have and which rights you don’t have. It could not be clearer could it? And YET, the law “prides” itself in telling you that all are equal before it! What utter tosh!

Now, please tell me this could not be any clearer for you.

The thing about just applying the law of contract to an employment situation (remembering an employment contract is simply a CONTRACT like any other), is that it would handle a dispute between the employer and the employee based on a more balanced and fair assessment of  such a contract. Ignoring that even the law of contract has its issues, every person should have the same access to such law as any other person but what the government and courts have done is separated the law of contract and applied it purely to CORPORATE PERSONS while introducing statutory employment law to keep you and I, the employees, in our places. By doing so, they have elevated the stature of the Corporation above the stature of the human being. “Persons”, once more, shown not to be equal before the law. The statutory employment law is stacked against the employee. Your position has been significantly reduced by this law which says all persons are equal before it. It simply is not true when they have created divisions and compartmentalisation within law to account for it. What is their answer to that? Easy! They say “But that is the law!” What they will never acknowledge or even debate is that the law, itself, is set up fundamentally to discriminate between different groups of “persons”.

2. “according to its own particular purposes, when it is devising its own legal person”. How about that for a statement? From the very beginning of “law”, they have introduced the concept of a legal person and it has probably been as simple as this: Those who are considered such, have “rights” and those who aren’t, don’t. Just think about slavery. From then on, they have, step by step, begun the categorisation of persons while they have maintained the power (for that is what it is – pure power/force) to determine and/or decide who and what category of entity can become and be recognised as a “person”. For many years, women were not “persons” in their own right. Neither were slaves (obviously – they were property) nor homosexuals and transexuals. It is all so arbitrary that different countries have different legal regimes which either decide to recognise these groups or not. Everything is purely arbitrary and based upon political agendas!

3. “deep divisions in legal thinking”. The law cannot even agree what a person is! Can you understand, then, that just as this fundamental cannot be agreed upon, neither can categories and groupings because it is all down to opinion and political agendas. These people then enforce THEIR opinions upon you and I purely by the FORCE of law. Again it is all arbitrary application of other people’s opinions and has no basis in the fundamentals of right and wrong. It is for that reason that legal statutes are very rarely based upon fundamental morality.

4. “pure, legal artifice”. while there are other opinions, it is clear that the over-riding opinion is this one because it is this one which is applied.

5. “Other jurists are convinced that law’s person has a natural (and to some) even God given character.” This is quite obviously, then, not the version in current use otherwise there would be no such thing as a “Corporate person” unless you’re one of those (no names mentioned) who believe they do “God’s work”. God did not create the Corporation – a man-made “birth” certificate did (as it did for you and I as “persons). In the Corporation’s case, however, that birth certificate is simply a certificate of incorporation. Same thing but different nomenclature applied to two different subsets of the legal person. The natural person (you and I) receive “Birth certificates” and the Corporate person a certificate of incorporation. Somehow, these people expect us not to be able to see this. Amazing really how dumb they assume us to be.

Person 5

 

6. “which makes him morally considerable, and so commands a certain respect from law”. So, it would seem the second set of opinion which considers the “person” as a creature of nature and has “god given” character, provides for a given, specific person before a court to command respect from that court dependent upon his/her morality and, possibly, capability to argue his/her case and points as a moral and intelligent being. The first opinion does not, in any way, allow for this as we know.

7. The third type of person (or the third opinion of what a person should be) is interesting because it then begs the question: “Where is the line drawn between what society considers moral and immoral?” Who would be above the borderline and who below it and for what reason? Again, the reason being an arbitrary opinion by a legislature? What is further quite bizarre about this third opinion is, if you lined up a whole bunch of people who had never been before a court before, how would you decide who is sufficiently moral to be given “personhood” and who is not? If it then depended upon an entity committing a crime as to whether they were judged a person or not, then, on committing the crime, surely the judge/court would have to say this entity is immoral and, therefore, is not a person? If they then cannot be helf morally accountable for their actions, surely this means, then, that they cannot be jailed due to not having a “guilty mind” (mens rea). So everyone who committed a crime (and therefore was judged immoral, otherwise why prosecute them?) would be, at worst, sent to a mental institution. These people do not half get themselves tied up in their metaphysics and philosophy eh? 🙂

8. “jurists often move between different versions of the legal person……they are endowing the term with different meanings”. Now there is an admission for you!

P1, the Cheshire cat, is the one you and I know so well isn’t it? A pure abstraction based upon a concept. While see note 18 at the bottom of the page: P1 has no expectations of us as competent people but P3 does. It would appear, then, that P3 acknowledges one’s capability/capacity/competence while P1 treats you as a piece of meat belonging to a category.

Person 6

 

9. Re the reference to mathematics. Think of it this way – you remember set theorems? Sets and subsets? That is all we are in law. We have no presumed morality and competence individually. They apply law based upon categorisation.

10. “Anything can be a legal person…” and it goes on to state a few. They could decide a chair leg is a legal person if they so desired. This is fact.

11. “babies and other human legal incompetents…” Yes a baby cannot sign a birth certificate and the irony is this: The “person” (mother or father normally) who DOES sign the birth certificate is, in fact, incompetent because they are entirely unaware of the consequences of the contract that they are signing. Further, they are coerced into provisioning this baby with such a document and, thereby, “bestowing rights” upon it and yet they are unaware of this and do not even consider whether they wish to register the baby with a system which can then number it, tax it and control its contractual relationships (whether employment, marriage, whatever) throughout its entire life. Why do we go to divorce courts? If we were moral, competent, considerate people, we would be able to split things appropriately and do without such but no, we’re greedy and immoral. That is probably why there are so many divorces after all. But how is it that the law assumes jurisdiction over us as a couple? Because we have registered our marriage! It’s that simple. All we are saying to the state, by the action of getting married, is that, if things go wrong, we are handing over responsibility and authority to the state to handle our affairs because we are incompetent to do so. We don’t realise that this is all we are, in fact doing but neither do we recognise that the birth registration does precisely the same – not for a couple but for a single entity. So P1 assumes the parent is competent while P1 actually laughs at the incompetence of the parent. 🙂

12. And there you have it (we never think of these things really do we?): A ghost is a person. A deceased entity still has rights (and duties). Now think hard on that as we come to the next point about foetuses.

Person 7

 

13. Would you agree with me that a 2 week old foetus in the womb is by far a more living being than a deceased entity? Is that deceased entity going to suddenly come alive again and tap on your door at some point? So then answer me this: Why does the law not protect a 2 week of even months of age embryo in the womb? You know the answer don’t you? It’s called population reduction and it is a politically motivated agenda. If the law can justify retaining personhood for a dead entity, how can it argue that a living foetus (no matter it is living in another being’s womb) is NOT a person and not worth the law’s protection? That said, if a mother was moral, a mother would never have an abortion. If a father was moral, he would never support such. Yes there is the argument about rape and other arguments such as it may be born badly handicapped. The former, of course, is again due to immorality (an immorality I, personally, cannot understand, as I can’t many). The latter is a very difficult one to call for it is still a life yet it may be a very unfortunate life while, of course, the eugenicists would argue it adds nothing to the economy!

14. “For the logic of the system it is just as much a pure ‘concept’ as ‘one’ in arithmetic. And there you have the plain truth. A truth the legal system in practice shall never acknowledge no matter how obvious it is.

15. “Law is a self enclosed system, in this view, which does not look elsewhere for its meaning” or justification for its justification comes from the force it uses to enforce it. “The law is an ass”… “That may be, but the law is the law”. Created by and maintained by the very force which wishes to protect “the public”, “the national interest”, “national security”, ” the realm”. All of which is, in the case of the UK and commonwealth certainly, the Crown. But it is a system to protect the very people who created it and that is all it is. As such, it is a protection mechanism for a mafia.

16. “It is an artificial world whose members are to some extent arbitrary”. Need I say more?

17. “The legal personality of a corporation is just as real and no more real than the legal personality of a normal human being”. And that is entirely correct. That is why the legal person must be destroyed. The wonderful thing about this statement is that it was probably made to protect the status of corporations as persons but, at the very same time, by doing so, it exposes the reality of the person (including the subset of “natural person” therefore) in stark, cold light of day.

Why doesn't this sign say "KEEP ABORTION MORAL"?

Why doesn’t this sign say “KEEP ABORTION MORAL”?

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats!

Posted in Law by earthling on March 11, 2014

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.

Legal persons

Person 1

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”.

Person 2

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.

Person 3

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!