KokomojO
wrote:
Raymond Karczewski
(arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
k: > Quote
from: Ray on May 10, 2009, 03:55:07 PM
rk: >> I am
not concerned with pandering to a "dumbed-down" audience
k: >
thats truly unfortunate
rk: Why is that?
rk: Does not your
comment exhibit the spirit of enabling for those who are spiritually
and psychologically crippled, paralyzed and dependent upon others to do
their thinking for them, to do for them what they ought to be able to
do for themselves?.
rk: Is that not
such a spiritual malady the zenith of mind control operating of a
Satanic ruled civilized world?
rk Do you
not see that one must be cultured through years of unbroken, outside
suggestive conditioning by satanic experts wearing the cloak of false
compassion to make it appear that such human defect is a virtue?
rk: Do you not
see that people on their knees, singing songs, sharing and swapping
their personal tales of misery with one another, expecting that,
by doing so, a promised Savior will descend from the clouds and rescue
them from the outcome of their own inertia?
rk: Do you not
now see how a paradise of otherwise abled bodied/minded men and
women, independent and dynamic in word and action can be
transformed into a hell of bickering, opposing, resentful,
exploitive, excusing, complaining, lethargic human beings?
rk: If not, that
is most "Unfortunate."
rk: If one looks
deeply into the usual responses to my writings they will see all of the
above in operation.
rk: Is that, not
most "Unfortunate."
rk: You will note
that I do not, and NEVER have sought to lead or become anyone's
Spiritual Nanny, to become their "crutch" when they are perfectly
capable of walking for themselves. Truth has the
power to AWAKEN anyone from their hypnotic slumber. but it is never
pleasant to one who wishes to continue in their slumber.
rk: The world of
man is rapidly being herded into enslavement to the Satanic Spirit, yet
the average man can only think of "resisting, resisting, resisting"
instead of "boycotting, boycotting, boycotting."
rk: Can you
see the difference in vibration? One is based in continued
violence. The other requires no effort at all, but to withdraw
one's own support to the Satanic energy of Opposiiton.
rk: That is what
I mean about one living in a BASSACKWARD world, and seeing himself a
servant and slave to it.
rk: That, my
friend is what is MOST UNFORTUNATE!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
*********************************************
"No other man but I in
the recorded History of
mankind, including
JESUS CHRIST, has directly
revealed to the World
the SATANIC WEAPON used to
enslave mankind --
INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT!!"
Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-corporate-person/
In Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Courts and Justice System, Democracy, Economics, History, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Protest, US Government on May 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Nowhere are corporations mentioned in The Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution was 32 years old before the Supreme Court even dealt with its first case regarding a private, for-profit corporation (Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 1819) under the contracts clause of Article I, Section 10 (“No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”). It was the conservatively activist court of the period following the War Between the States which changed the landscape of corporate law in the United States with a dictum by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in his opinion on Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) stating that corporations were ‘persons’ as meant by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (… nor shall any State deprive any ‘person’ of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any ‘person’ within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.)
Between 1890 and 1937, VERY activist courts that were VERY conservative and pro-business weakened the ability of employees, customers, state legislatures and labor unions to challenge the power of corporations in the United States. Even under more liberal courts, corporations have been given additional rights of ‘persons’, such as with 1978’s National Bank vs. Bellotti decision which protected corporate ‘political speech’ under the 1st Amendment. In all ways, corporations in the United States are legal ‘persons’ under The Constitution which means that, in The United States, certain stacks of signed documents are the same as, and have the same rights under the law as any living, breathing flesh and blood ‘person’ does. Isn’t it time to challenge the legal and logical fallacies of this position?
A human ‘person’ is born. You can say that a corporation is born, also, but a corporation does not go through a childhood or minority in which it is raised and educated before it is given rights and powers of equal standing with an adult. There is no consideration of childhood for a corporation and yet for a human person, the importance of childhood cannot be minimized. Children can be required to attend school and be subjected to curfews that do not apply to adults. Children are restricted in purchasing or using things with which they might harm themselves or others through restrictions which do not apply to adults (alcohol, tobacco, guns, etc.). Children cannot legally gamble or enter into contracts. Children can be restricted from accessing information which other adults can freely access (pornography and restricted movies are two examples of this). Children cannot vote and their rights of assembly can be limited. Children cannot work or earn their own money except as specifically provided for by law. Childhood places very real restrictions and limitations on human ‘persons’ before they are given all of the rights and privileges of an adult. In addition, under The Constitution, there are even further restrictions on age… no ‘person’ can be elected to a Constitutional office until they have the achieved the age of 25, 30 or 35 (depending on the particular office). Corporations have no equal burdens placed upon them; rather they enter the world as full adults, like Venus rising out of the sea in a shell or Athena springing from the head of Zeus.
A human ‘person’ is responsible for their own actions. A human ‘person’ who breaks a law and is brought before a court to answer to justice will be the one who pays a fine or goes to jail. Felons also have restrictions placed upon them for the rest of their lives. A corporate ‘person’ cannot be jailed. A corporate ‘person’ can also just make changes in their management or their Board of Directors and make a claim for leniency or exception which a human ‘person’ who is sane cannot make… “It wasn’t us, it was others, and they aren’t here now”. Such a claim made by a human ‘person’ would be considered proof of very real and very serious mental illnesses. While individuals who work for a corporation can be held accountable for some of their actions (keep in mind, the purpose of incorporation is to shield individuals from personal liability or accountability to the public), a corporation itself cannot be imprisoned. Further, while a corporation might be fined or otherwise punished by a court, the people who made decisions can go elsewhere and continue as they have. Like a coach of a team which is sanctioned by the NCAA, if the coach can just get a job elsewhere, the sanctions don’t follow him. Corporations can further shield themselves by creating other corporations which they own and control but which protect the greater corporation from financial or legal liability.
A human ‘person’ has duties to perform in their society. A human ‘person’ can be called to serve on a jury as provided for in The Constitution. A human ‘person’ can enlist in, or even be conscripted into a military service and sent to die for their country. A human ‘person’ can run for political office to help fulfill the needs of leadership of their governments at all levels. No corporate ‘person’ is capable of fulfilling the obligations or duty of service to their country of an individual.
A human ‘person’ dies. How long can a human ‘person’ be part of the workforce? How long can they provide for themselves and make their own decisions? How long can a human ‘person’ keep death at bay? While a corporation might go belly up, or be bought or just end by a decision of those at the top, a corporation, a corporate ‘person’, has no natural lifespan and can, in principle, go on living forever… maybe a restructuring here and there or a name change but, none-the-less, the same legal ‘person’.
The logical case against considering corporations to be ‘persons’ could fill a book, however, there is also a legal flaw which should be addressed within the Constitutional framework of accepting corporations as ‘persons’… a ‘person’ can’t be owned in the United States.
The idea of corporations as ‘persons’ was ‘found’ by the Court in the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment makes them ‘persons’ under The Constitution, doesn’t the 13th Amendment also apply to them? (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”) Now, go to any dictionary you can find and look up, in order, slavery and slave. I’ll wait.
No ‘person’ can own another ‘person’ in the United States. Therefore, if a corporation IS a legal ‘person’ under the protection and jurisdiction of The Constitution, doesn’t that mean that they can’t be owned, and that they cannot own other ‘persons’ (i.e. – other corporations). If The Constitution applies to the Corporate ‘person’, doesn’t that mean that the WHOLE Constitution applies to them?
Rhys M. Blavier
Romayor, Texas
“Truth, Justice and Honor… but, above all Honor”
© copyright 2008 by Rhys M. Blavier
The Battle Lines are being drawn. On What Side of the line will the American People Stand?. Will they understand their True Sovereignty, that of being the True Government, and put an end to the nonsense and expense by a limited sovereign powers of a servant government paid to carry out the aims of their Master, the Sovereign People?.
Ed & Elaine Brown personify a man and woman of the Sovereign People. They understand that by Law, (not the federal, legislative, "color or law" corporate policy which presently masquerades as law) they, as a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient natural Man and Woman of the Sovereign People are the creators of the present fictional government and courts which have overstepped their limited sovereignty and unlawfully stripped Ed and Elaine of their Freedom, their Liberty, and their lifelong acquired property, WITHOUT ever having answered the question of whether a Fictional Court has JURISDICTION over their creators, the Sovereign men and women of the People of America.
Instead the servant government has declared war upon them as "Wards of the State" 14th Amendment counterfeit, second class citizens, i.e., Slaves when in fact Ed and Elaine Brown have pointedly asked the courts to SHOW THEM THE LAW, that declared them to be subject to the the IRS laws. They have also asked the fictional court to prove JURISDICTION over them, the Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural men and Women who created them which the court has refused to do. So far ALL COURTS have remained MUM on the question.
Servant governments don't like it when the Sovereign People assert their responsibility. That is what is behind this present unlawful persecution/prosecution of Ed and Elaine Brown.
Why do I speak so authoritatively about this matter of Jurisdiction?
Because the STATE OF OREGON and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE, threatened me with 30 years as a paper terrorist for holding my public servants accountable for their crimes and misconduct through UCC Commercial Liens. Two days before the first of two trials were to ensue, The government offered to drop all charges from the threat of 30 years in prison to time served plus 2 year probation. What a deal huh?
I rejected the deal, stood Sui Juris as Ed and Elaine are in order to retain their Sovereignty. Though my "Trademark/Tradename JURISTIC PERSON was convicted in both Kangaroo Trials, when it came time for sentencing, I REFUSED to accept their offer of contract until they proved Jurisdiction.
I was sent back to jail but released shortly thereafter. No Probation, No Jail, No Prison. That is what it took for me to retain my Freedom as a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man of the Sovereign People.
Sorry New Hampshire government, the "Jig is UP", Save the Taxpayers money. Before any further Legal proceeding ensue, Answer the damned question, Ed and Elaine have put to you by demanding you prove (as present law dictates) your JURISDICTION over Ed and Elaine, a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural man and woman who are rightfully asserting their rights and operating at full legal capacity and are not "wards of the state."
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Cave Junction, Oregon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Big jury pool for Brown trial Request brought on by publicity
By Margot Sanger-Katz Monitor staff
May 18, 2009 - 12:00 am
A federal court has asked for nearly triple its usual jury pool to select jurors for the conspiracy and weapons case against Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield.
The couple, whose extended standoff with federal officials was widely publicized, are well known in New Hampshire. That fact will make it more difficult to select an impartial jury than in a typical criminal case, said U.S. District Court clerk James Starr.
"A normal criminal case with two defendants, we'd probably bring in 80," Starr said. "This case has got a little more coverage, so we bring in a few more jurors just to make sure, again, that we can pick a jury on that day."
Court officials are expecting about 230 potential jurors in late June. That's not a record for the federal court; at times civil cases involving major local institutions such as Concord Hospital have attracted more. The number is similar to the jury pools in two recent high-profile criminal cases - last year's trial of four Brown supporters and the 2005 trial of Jim Tobin in the Republican National Committee phone jamming case. But it is a large enough jury pool that the court has made special arrangements for transportation and logistics.
The Browns were convicted of tax-related felonies in January 2007 but avoided capture for months by holing up in their concrete home, stockpiling weapons and threatening violence against federal agents. They were arrested in October of that year by undercover U.S. marshals. The couple are now accused of a combined 11 felonies, including conspiring to interfere with the federal government, obstruction of justice and illegally possessing firearms. The most serious charge, for making and possessing improvised explosive devices, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison.
Throughout the standoff, the Browns were the subject of extensive local and national news coverage. They also appeared regularly on an online radio show and publicized their situation on social networking sites, discussion forums and anti-government websites.
Four of their most prominent supporters were tried last year. During jury selection for that case, nearly half of all possible jurors said they had heard of Ed and Elaine Brown and read news coverage of their case.
The Browns were charged with the new crimes in February. Though at separate arraignments, both Browns said they did not wish to participate in the court proceedings, they have filed more than 20 motions with the court so far. Nearly all have been dismissed by the judge as frivolous. The Browns have met regularly in jail to plan their defense, but they have rejected discovery materials provided by prosecutors and have missed deadlines to file evidentiary motions.
The judge, George Singal, did grant two requests from the couple. He allowed their near-daily meetings and delayed their trial from its original date in April to late June.
In a recent letter to supporters, published in the sympathetic New Hampshire Free Press, the Browns explained why they can't participate in their trial. The letter said the Browns operate under "God's law," not the laws of the court.
"Going into the courtroom which operates as a fiction, would require us, flesh-and-blood man and woman created by God, to present ourselves as legal fictions, known as the 'strawman,' " the letter said. "This would be a dishonor to God."
Jury selection is expected to take one day. The trial is scheduled to begin June 30 and is likely to last three weeks.
Google Groups Home
Invalid profile
Government Disinfo Agent AKA Invalid Profile Wrote:
Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
gda: > Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (May 25, 8:39 pm).
gda: > arke...@earthlink.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
Big jury pool for Brown trial Request brought on by publicity
gda: > Forget it, Kazoo. The fix is in. The jury has already been selected, the motions ruled, the verdict cast, and the sentence decided. Only the show remains. Once again, Disinfotainment HQ did a great job.
gda: > The Browns will never see the light of day. Continue to behave, or you get some of that too.
rk: Your threat has been noted not only by myself, but by the entire Internet reading public to whom you have exposed to such government strong arm tactics.
rk: Your threats have only succeeded in AWAKENING THE SLEEPING GIANT.
gda: > Hell, isn't it?
rk: Tell me about it. "It ain't over till its over.!!!"