Contact

Send reports, ask questions, gripe, attack, and so on:

strikelawyer@gmail.com

25 responses to “Contact

    • Well, Jeff, thanks to you I have not missed it. At least not by more than a couple of days.

      I’m not sure how relevant the story is to my little project here, other than that it shares the term “strike”. But I’m going to look into it further when I get the chance. And I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention. That’s the second little item of professional courtesy I have received this week; it’s nice to know the quaint practice still has some vitality.

      Like

  1. frenchfrog

    Interesting text found with much effort…..wondering what you think about this ????

    LAWYERS; YOU HAVE LAWYERS!
    Oh my, yes you do! However, since you ones fail
    to know anything about your Constitution—I get to
    lay another heavy trip on you. How many
    Amendments do you have? Do you know that it is
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A LAWYER TO BE
    ELECTED TO CONGRESS? WHAT DOES YOUR
    THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT SAY? Well, NOW it
    reads: “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…etc.”
    Ah, but not so. THAT WAS THE 14TH
    AMENDMENT I JUST CITED. THE ORIGINAL
    13TH AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:
    “If any citizen of the United States shall accept,
    claim, receive, or retain any TITLE OF NOBILITY or
    HONOUR, or shall, without the consent of Congress,
    accept and retain any present, pension, office, or
    emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor,
    king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease
    to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be
    incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under
    them, or either of them.”
    Thank you, David Dodge, Researcher and Alfred
    Adask, Editor, AntiShyster, August, 1991:
    These ones also give you a special version of the
    pledge of allegiance you might consider—for it says
    what the original MEANT and ceased to be accepted:
    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United
    States of America, and to the Republic that honors that
    Constitution, one nation, under God, with Liberty and
    Justice for all.
    MISSING 13TH AMENDMENT
    “TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”
    In the winter of 1983, archival research expert
    David Dodge, and former Baltimore police
    investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence
    of government corruption in public records stored in
    the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance
    [H: ?—I think not!], they discovered the library’s
    oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United
    States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to
    see this document included a 13th Amendment that no
    longer appears on current copies of the Constitution.
    Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language
    and historical context, they realized the principle intent
    of this “missing” 13th Amendment WAS TO
    PROHIBIT LAWYERS FROM SERVING IN
    GOVERNMENT….!
    So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the
    truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional
    puzzle in American history—the unlawful REMOVAL
    OF A RATIFIED Amendment from the Constitution
    of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn
    have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution
    with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least
    eighteen separate publications by ten different states
    and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
    In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the
    evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed
    been LAWFULLY RATIFIED by the state of Virginia
    and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the
    American Constitution. The evidence is correct and
    no errors are found—a 13th Amendment restricting
    lawyers from serving in government was ratified in
    1819 and REMOVED from your Constitution during
    the tumult of the Civil War—deliberately!
    Since the Amendment was never LAWFULLY
    REPEALED, IT IS STILL THE LAW TODAY!
    Wouldn’t you now guess that the implications are
    ENORMOUS?
    The story of this “missing” Amendment is
    complex and at times confusing because the political
    issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution
    were different from your own. However, there are
    essentially two issues: What does the Amendment
    mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Let’s look
    first at the “meaning”.
    MEANING
    The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution
    of the United States reads as above cited.
    At first reading, the meaning of this 13th
    Amendment (also called the “title of nobility”
    Amendment) seems a bit obscure, unimportant. The
    references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”,
    and “prince” lead you to dismiss this amendment as a
    petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
    British monarchy. But in your modern world of Lady
    Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so
    archaic and quaint that the Amendment can be
    ignored. NOT SO!
    Consider some real hard evidence of its historical
    significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited
    in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation
    (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of
    the United States (1788); Second, although already
    prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of
    nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in
    1810, and was finally ratified in 1819. Clearly the
    founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of
    nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them
    would FORFEIT THEIR CITIZENSHIP. (How about
    Sir Schwarzkopf? and Sir Dr. Kissinger?) Since the
    government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times
    over four decades, and went through the amending
    process (even though “titles of nobility” were already
    prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the
    Amendment carried much more significance for your
    founding fathers than is readily apparent to you today.
    HISTORICAL CONTEXT
    To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th
    Amendment, you must understand its historical
    context—the era surrounding the American Revolution
    (which of course, you are not taught).
    You tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as
    benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at
    the time of the American Revolution, King George III
    and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy
    as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit
    as dangerously radical as Communism. [H: So, the
    obvious solution was to turn Democracy and
    Communism into a method of creating what they
    wanted in the first place, a Monarchy-Dictatorship,
    while calling it nice labels.] Just as the 1917
    Communist Revolution in Russia [H: financed by you
    nice people’s bankers just as the so-called Soviet
    Revolution this week is sponsored and financed by the
    same nice people in your behalf] spawned other
    revolutions around the world, the American
    Revolution provided an example and incentive for
    people all over the world to overthrow their European
    monarchies—or so it was interpreted.
    Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the
    Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of your
    existence threatened the monarchies. The United
    States stood as a heroic role model for other nations
    that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive
    monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and
    the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part
    encouraged by the American Revolution. Though you
    stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the
    monarchies regarded the United States as a political
    “typhoid Mary”, the principle source of radical
    democracy that was destroying monarchies around the
    world.
    The monarchies must have realized that if the
    principle source of that infection could be destroyed,
    the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and
    the monarchies would be saved.
    Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to
    destroy or subvert the American system of
    government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy you
    militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of
    political subversion, employing spies and secret agents
    skilled in bribery and legal deception—it was, perhaps,
    the first “cold war”. Since governments run on
    money, politicians run FOR money, and money is the
    usual enticement to commit treason, much of the
    monarchy’s counter-revolutionary efforts emanated
    from English banks.
    DON’T BANK ON IT
    The essence of banking was once explained by Sir
    Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of
    England. I have given this before but it is such a
    dandy, I shall repeat it: “The modern banking system
    manufactures money out of nothing. The process is
    perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
    that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in
    inequity and born in sin … Bankers own the earth.
    Take it away from them but leave them the power to
    create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will
    create enough money to buy it back again …. Take
    this great power away from them and all great fortunes
    like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear,
    for then this would be a better and happier world to
    Page 6 REVIEW JANUARY 10, 2007
    live in …. But, if you want to continue to be the
    slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own
    slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and
    control credit.”
    One of the past great abuses of your banking
    system caused the depression of the 1930s. Today’s
    abuses are causing another and more massive
    depression than the world has ever known. Current
    S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going
    relationships between banks, LAWYERS, politicians,
    and government agencies (look at the current BCCI
    and BNL scandals running from high government
    officers to the Presidency itself involved in totally
    criminal activities) such as the Federal Reserve, the
    FDIC, and even the CIA. These scandals are the
    direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of
    bankers and lawyers using their influence and money
    to corrupt the political process and rob the public.
    (Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going
    to pay the bill for the excesses of these bailouts?) As
    Oberli and Dharma track further and deeper into
    involved parties attached to this present property scam/
    scandal—they are finding other financial institutions
    involved and, as named in the investigation, find
    Salomon Brothers and other financial institutions who are
    kaput and haven’t even been made public—no wonder
    the FDIC and RTC are asking additional BILLIONS.
    The systematic robbery of productive individuals
    by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent
    phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that
    predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America
    despite early colonial prohibitions. (Remember the
    Protocols of Zion? Try the issue of Oct. 1920: No. 13:
    “We have already established our own men in all
    important positions. We must endeavor to provide the
    Goyim (non-Jews and including Judeans/Hebrews)
    with LAWYERS and doctors; the LAWYERS are au
    courant with all interest ….”, and 14: “But above all
    let us monopolize Education. By this means we
    spread ideas that are useful to us, and shape the
    children’s brains as suits us.” And then, 15: “If one
    of our people should unhappily fall into the hands of
    justice amongst the Christians, we must rush to help
    him; find as many WITNESSES AS HE NEEDS TO
    SAVE HIM FROM HIS JUDGES—UNTIL WE
    BECOME JUDGES OURSELVES!”
    It is about time to again publish the Protocols,
    friends, but I have quite a bit of additional updating to
    do prior to that so let us hold up herein and not get
    sidetracked from the “missing” 13th Amendment—it is
    all tied in together, as you might have guessed by
    now. You may as well consider that there is total
    integration of the PROTOCOLS OF ZION, the
    CREMIEUX MANIFESTO and the epistle emanating
    from the “PRINCE OF THE JEWS”. Isn’t it
    interesting that these were published in a Rothschild
    magazine? The “Prince of the Jews” was done in
    1489 A.D. But then, who would ever think, most
    especially Gentiles, of connecting these things with
    other documents emanating from Jewry, or with
    modern happenings? So be it!
    When the first United States Bank was chartered
    by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks
    in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by
    law in most states because many of the early settlers
    were all too familiar with the practices of the
    European goldsmith banks.
    Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store
    client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold,
    customers were issued notes (paper money) which
    were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers
    quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra”
    notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the
    “extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them
    to buy property with notes for gold that they did not
    own, gold that did not even exist.
    Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed
    too much paper money, found themselves overleveraged,
    and caused a “run on the bank”. If the
    bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the
    paper money became worthless and common citizens
    left holding the paper were ruined. Although overleveraged
    bankers were sometimes hung, the bankers
    continued printing extra money to increase their
    fortunes at the expense of the productive members of
    society. (The practice continues to this day and offers
    “sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides
    the foundation for deficit spending and your federal
    government’s unbridled growth.)
    PAPER MONEY
    If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith
    bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their
    memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized
    the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount
    not to exceed $200,000,000. The states issued another
    $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of
    the paper money fell so low that they were soon
    traded on speculation from 500 to 1000 paper bills for
    one coin.
    It’s then suggested that your Constitution’s
    prohibition against a paper economy—“No State shall
    … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender
    in Payment of Debts”—was a tool of the wealthy to be
    worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in
    a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and
    increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of
    the productive.
    “Paper money”, said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted
    the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of
    oppression, corrupted the justice of our public
    administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands
    who had confidence in it, enervated the trade,
    husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went
    far to destroy the morality of our people.”
    CONSPIRACIES
    Be patient—it may “seem” that I am not on the
    same subject but I am.
    A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies
    and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the
    United States:
    According to the Tennessee Laws 1715-1820, vol
    II, p.774, in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States
    agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George
    III, as reparations for the American Revolution
    (interesting?). The Senate ratified the treaty in secret
    session and ordered that it not be published. When
    Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway,
    the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered
    the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts
    (1798) SO FEDERAL JUDGES COULD PROSECUTE
    EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS FOR REPORTING
    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.
    Since you had WON the Revolutionary War, why
    would your Senators agree to pay REPARATIONS to
    the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000
    pounds sterling, eleven years AFTER the war ended?
    It just doesn’t seem to make sense does it? Especially
    in light of the Senate’s secrecy and later fury over
    being exposed, UNLESS YOU ASSUME YOUR
    SENATORS HAD BEEN BRIBED TO SERVE THE
    BRITISH MONARCHY AND BETRAY THE
    AMERICAN PEOPLE—THAT, DEAR ONES, IS
    SUBVERSION!
    The United States Bank had been opposed by the
    Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists
    (the pro-monarchy party) won-out in its establishment.
    The initial capitalization was $10,000,000—80% of
    which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the
    bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000
    (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for
    both the government and the bankers since they could
    lend, and collect interest (usury) on, $10,000,000
    THAT DID NOT EXIST.
    However, the European bankers outfoxed the
    government and by 1796, the government owed the
    bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By
    1802, your government OWNED NO STOCK IN
    THE UNITED STATES BANK.)
    The sheer power of the banks and their ability to
    influence representative government by economic
    manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in
    1811, when the people discovered that European
    banking interests OWNED 80% OF THE BANK.
    Congress, therefore, refused to renew the bank’s charter.
    This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by
    European investors, which in turn, precipitated an
    economic recession, and the War of 1812.
    There are other examples of the monarchy’s
    efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some
    are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed
    to the public. There is, for example, a book called 2
    VA LAW in the Library of Congress Law Library.
    This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section
    that reveals a plan to OVERTHROW THE
    CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT BY SECRET
    AGREEMENTS ENGINEERED BY THE LAWYERS.
    THAT, DEAR ONES, IS ONE REASON THAT THE
    13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED BY
    VIRGINIA AND THE NOTIFICATION ‘LOST IN
    THE MAIL’. THERE IS NO PUBLIC RECORD OF
    THIS BOOK’S EXISTENCE!
    Does this sound surprising? Perish the thought of
    “surprising”. The Library of Congress has over
    349,402 uncatalogued rare books and 13.9 MILLION
    UN-CATALOGUED RARE MANUSCRIPTS, LAWS
    AND RATIFICATIONS! THERE ARE SECRETS
    BURIED IN THAT MASS OF DOCUMENTS EVEN
    MORE ASTONISHING THAN A MISSING
    CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, I CAN WELL
    ASSURE YOU.
    TITLES OF NOBILITY
    In seeking to rule the world and destroy the
    United States, bankers committed many crimes.
    Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion,
    and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their
    crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career
    criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with
    the best LAWYERS and JUDGES money could buy.
    These alliances, originally forged in Europe
    (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies,
    and later into the newly formed United States of
    America. Just as with Dharma and Oberli’s legal
    case—the adversary lawyer, Mr. Horn, simply
    removes any papers from the file which can aid and
    assist the defendants! When discovered, he then
    threatens all sorts of heinous consequences if his trick
    is revealed. What is this man’s name? I thought you
    would never ask: It is spelled STEVEN HORN. ONE
    OF HIS THREATS IS TO “GET THEM” IF THIS
    INCIDENT IS REVEALED IN ANY OF THIS SOCALLED
    “DHARMA’S” WRITINGS. WELL, OLD
    BUDDY—THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT
    I DO SUGGEST THAT MR. HORN DOES!
    Remember the part of the Protocols about
    providing witnesses sufficient to win your case? Well,
    he did that too—but he outsmarted himself. The first
    hearing came with sufficient “provided” witnesses to
    swamp the court with liars. But, he had presented a
    backup case petition which caused the Judge to
    JANUARY 10, 2007 CONTACT: PHOENIX JOURNAL REVIEW Page 7
    disallow further proceedings at that time. So, along
    with the presentation of the City Clerk and City
    Treasurer as defendant’s witnesses, the “liars” did
    panic and disappear. How handy, though, our
    attorneys have turned up one or two of them and we
    shall see how well they like lying NOW.
    Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances
    forged in Europe generated wealth and, ultimately,
    respectability. Like any modern unit of organized
    crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be
    admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their
    criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the
    British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting
    them “TITLES OF NOBILITY”.
    Historically, the British peerage system referred to
    knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the
    knight’s shields as “Esquires”. (Isn’t this fun?) As
    lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to
    more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier
    (and far more profitable) than the sword, and the
    clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers)
    came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title
    was “Esquire” (used, even today, by lawyers!).
    INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
    In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys
    but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There
    was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the
    position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge;
    a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a
    lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations.
    The only organization that certified lawyers was the
    International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the
    King of England, headquartered in London, and closely
    associated with the international banking system.
    Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank
    “ESQUIRE”—A “TITLE OF NOBILITY”!
    “Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which
    the 13th Amendment sought to PROHIBIT from the
    United States. Why? Because the loyalty of
    “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers
    with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of
    the monarchy, members of an organization whose
    principle purposes were political, not economic, and
    regarded with the same wariness that some people
    today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
    Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to
    prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other
    agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating
    in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify
    a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents
    of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence
    the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the U.S.
    Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of
    nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of
    citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810.
    The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to
    prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties
    to foreign governments and bankers from voting,
    holding public office, or using their skills to subvert
    the government.
    HONOR
    The missing Amendment is referred to as the “title
    of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition
    against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.
    The archaic definition of “honor” (as used when
    the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone
    “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over
    another”. A contemporary example of an “honor”
    granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being
    a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the
    attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers CAN NOT.
    By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment
    prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant
    some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or
    exercise political power. Therefore, the second
    meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment is to ensure
    political equality among all American citizens, by
    prohibiting anyone, EVEN GOVERNMENT
    OFFICIALS, from claiming or exercising a special
    privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.
    This interpretation is quite true, little ones, and
    would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment.
    Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no
    longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of
    “honor” remains relevant.
    For example, anyone who had a specific
    “immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to
    all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an
    “honor” and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or
    hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from
    lawsuits that your judges, lawyers, politicians, and
    bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example,
    think of all the “special interest” legislation your
    government passes: “special interests” are simply
    euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).
    WHAT IF?
    If the missing 13th Amendment were to be
    restored, “special interests” and “immunities” would
    be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against
    “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire
    government to operate under the same laws as the
    citizens of your nation. Without their current personal
    immunities (honors), your judges and IRS agents
    would be unable to abuse common citizens without
    fear of legal liability. If the 13th Amendment were
    restored, your entire government would have to
    conduct itself according to the same standards of
    decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the
    nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were
    applied today, your government’s ability to
    systematically coerce and abuse the public would be
    all but eliminated. Just IMAGINE!
    CAN YOU IMAGINE A GOVERNMENT
    WITHOUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR
    IMMUNITIES? How could you even describe it? It
    would be almost like a government—OF THE
    PEOPLE—BY THE PEOPLE—AND FOR THE
    PEOPLE! COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT THE
    FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED IT BE THAT
    WAY? IMAGINE: A GOVERNMENT WHOSE
    MEMBERS WERE TRULY ACCOUNTABLE TO
    THE PUBLIC; A GOVERNMENT THAT COULD
    NOT SYSTEMATICALLY EXPLOIT ITS OWN
    PEOPLE!
    It’s unheard of for it got deliberately undone
    before it could be done—it has never been done
    before—and you thought a poor soul called Benedict
    Arnold was a traitor! You have never had a
    Constitutional government as intended—not ever in
    the entire history of the world!!!
    So here comes the argument: Senator George
    Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede
    this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in
    1810. However, they explain that there were
    seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of
    nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the
    support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states
    supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The
    Government Printing Office hops on the bandwagon to
    agree; it currently prints copies of the
    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES which
    include the “title of nobility” Amendment as
    proposed—but un-ratified.
    Even if this 13th Amendment was never ratified,
    even if research would be flawed and only twelve
    states voted to ratify the Amendment—wouldn’t the
    possibility be wondrous to imagine? So what am I
    saying? Am I saying that it was a dream within one
    vote of historical utopia? No! I am saying that it
    WAS RATIFIED.
    After a break we shall continue to prove it. And,
    dear ones of America and ones running for office with
    overwhelming odds against “housecleaning”—here are
    your tools to do the sweeping! NOW DO YOU SEE
    THE VALUE OF A GOOD OLD SPACE CADET
    WITH X-RAY VISION? IT SURELY DOESN’T
    SURPRISE ANY OF YOU THAT THIS
    PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD “GET
    LOST”? SO BE IT.

    Like

    • French: Long time no see. Did you follow the Casey Anthony saga? I’m recommending that she leave the country now. In fact I think she should go to France, where they seem to have a healthy skepticism of the US legal system.

      Like

  2. frenchfrog

    Hi Atticus, I didn’t alas follow the saga….need to catch up on my reading…but yeah send her over…we’re gonna get DS of K back from the US, smelling like a rose and probably running for the presidency on the “caviar” left side…eating truffe pasta dishes at 100 bucks the plate oblige…the sect will never cease to amaze me….the Roman Empire is back in all its splendor..and so is the end of mash potatoes for us, soon. But sure, the French are completely disconnected with reality, so what the heck…
    on the subject I sent to you…what is your feeling on those writings ? did you read the fabulous library of George Mercier (invisible contracts….and Agony and ecstasy (2500 pages) ?

    Like

  3. frenchfrog

    Oh, Mercier ? has to do with many interesting things regarding law issues…not that it concerns the Casey Anthony saga, I concede… I’ve been reading about civil and maritime law lately and just fell upon his writings….quite interesting I must say. Didn’t want to disturb though.

    Like

  4. Roni B

    If you want to read yet another example of the corruption of Tom Moran, read the information at this site. As of today, Tim Herington is still in prision on a false conviction and the ex-wife is dead due to a drug overdose. Corruption at it’s finest.

    http://www.fathersunite.org/Judicial%20Abuse/fair_trial_rights_often_violated.html

    Like

  5. I’ve been posting this all over the internet and thought you lawyers might have a comment:

    Most Americans understand the reasoning behind the Constitutional firewall between Church and State but how many can explain the revolving door between State and Banking? If you answered “Because the Constitution doesn’t contain such a firewall.” you would be correct. This is what I think a Constitutional firewall should look like:

    “Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and priveleges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to; 1 prohibitions against any corporation becoming so large its failure would pose a threat to national security or harm the general economy, 2 prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of government, education, and news media, and 3 provisions for civil and criminal penalties to be paid by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.”

    Your fan,

    William Falberg

    Like

    • Hello William.

      Not quite sure how to respond. There is nothing really wrong with corporations in theory, they are just legal entities with a form of governance that pretty much mirrors every other form of governance: the CEO is roughly equivalent to the president; the Board of Directors is roughly equivalent to the Congress; the shareholders are roughly equivalent to the populace.

      The essence of the corporation is this: a mechanism to limit risk, so as to encourage risk taking. This is generally regarded as a good thing.

      I don’t know how you could limit their size. I don’t know how you could prohibit them from influencing politicians or anyone else. They are creatures of law so they can be abolished by law, but what good does that do?

      They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and no one else. But this does not, contrary to popular conceptions, necessarily entail maximizing profit at all costs, although a corporation should certainly strive to be profitable.

      They have also always, in the US, been creatures of state law, not federal.

      So I have to say I don’t really know where you’re going with this idea.

      Like

  6. “Not quite sure how to respond.”
    In plain English.

    “ There is nothing really wrong with corporations in theory, they are just legal entities with a form of governance that pretty much mirrors every other form of governance: the CEO is roughly equivalent to the president; the Board of Directors is roughly equivalent to the Congress; the shareholders are roughly equivalent to the populace.”
    So you see no conflict of interest in having mirror images of a sovereign nation existing within the pre-existing borders of said sovereign? Not even King George would agree with that idea; Magna Carta or no Magna Carta. What exactly are your requirements for being “really wrong”?

    “The essence of the corporation is this: a mechanism to limit risk, so as to encourage risk taking. This is generally regarded as a good thing.”
    This is only considered a good thing by those who would escape responsibility and game the system to leverage other people’s money. Risk taking is generally regarded as risky and responsible people avoid it. Responsible people are, however, often deceived by reckless speculators under the guise of limited liability. Risk taking is a double-edged sword and cuts through good as well as bad investments. The People, under Federal jurisdiction, (should) have a right to withhold corporate charters from entities that lack any further value to society.

    “I don’t know how you could limit their size.”
    I do: write definitive limitations into corporate charters as conditions for their issuance. “Too Big To Fail” would be a good place to start applying litmus tests for banking corporations. Similar litmus tests could be implimented to restrict the monopolistic control of other specific industries. The data is there; we just need to apply it in the public interest and only the US government has the jurisdiction to do it.

    “ I don’t know how you could prohibit them from influencing politicians or anyone else.”
    I do. RICO already defines “a pattern of abuse” that any jury could interpret.

    “They are creatures of law so they can be abolished by law, but what good does that do?”
    I didn’t suggest the abolishion of corporations; only that they be held responsible to The People by charters as carefully written as the Constitution itself.

    “They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and no one else.”
    That is precisely the crux of the current problem , isn’t it.

    “But this does not, contrary to popular conceptions, necessarily entail maximizing profit at all costs, although a corporation should certainly strive to be profitable.”
    Absolutely. Corporatism hasn’t worked because it’s the antithesis of Capitalism. That’s another subject.

    “They have also always, in the US, been creatures of state law, not federal.”
    I think we can thank Hamilton for that Constitutional ommission. I don’t see why we have to live with their bad decisions indefinitely however. This 28th Amendment would go a long way toward restoring your faith in the Rule of Law, wouldn’t it?

    “So I have to say I don’t really know where you’re going with this idea.”
    I think you do. You just wanted to know if I knew where I was going. I’m still not clear on all the details but I’m absolutely sure of the general direction.

    Like

    • I don’t know what “corporatism” is, at least not the way you’re using it. Societies have many sub-groups – partnerships, families, voluntary associations of all kinds – none of which supplant government or are in any way a threat to the public good. Quite the contrary. Corporations are no different on that score.

      Limiting risk is not the same thing as being irresponsible. The idea is that people might wish to invest in this or that project but don’t want to bet the farm. That is, they’ll put only so much at risk and not more. It’s a point of law: in a partnership, every partner is personally liable for every partnership expense; in a corporation, the shareholders can lose what they put into it, but if the company goes under the creditors don’t get to come after the shareholders’ houses. Surely if you think about it you can see the sense in that. Almost no one would be willing to take any chance on any unproven idea if failure or miscalculation meant you’d lose everything.

      Maybe it would be better if you described just what injurious effects you think corporations have such that they should be constitutionally restricted. I don’t dispute that some corporations have injurious effects, of course. But your claim seems to be that this has something to do with the corporate form itself, or that it’s something inherent in corporations that makes them different from anything else. It isn’t the fiduciary duty to shareholders thing, because partners have fiduciary duties to each other (and no one else) too. But if there’s something else you’re thinking of I’m not aware of it, so maybe try that first and we’ll go from there.

      Like

  7. “I don’t know what “corporatism” is, at least not the way you’re using it.”
    Corporatism is a new word I had to invent to describe the complex system of collective ownership by which capital is used to manipulate and monopolize markets. It assumes a legitimate public sanction that was never formally granted but operates on the basis of financial leverage to effect favorable legislative advantage over less-capitalized entities through a shadowy network of unofficial corporate representatives and corrupt elected officials. Corporatism ascribes the majority of Congressional legislation to the efforts of corporate lobbyists acting in their own self-interest; as opposed to the People who nominally elected them to serve the common good. To the extent that corporate financing of political candidates largely determines the outcome of public elections, it is assumed the representative thus chosen will favor his contributors over the People in all matters; negating the fundamental principles of a democratic republic. Corporatists would prefer you didn’t use that term. It may never appear in the dictionaries of corporate publishers, but it’s already reached the stage of common usage and can’t be stuffed back into the bottle.

    “Societies have many sub-groups – partnerships, families, voluntary associations of all kinds – none of which supplant government or are in any way a threat to the public good. Quite the contrary. Corporations are no different on that score.”
    Since you want to lump corporations into a generic pile irrespective to size and nature, let’s round out that list a little further: “partnerships , families,(Koch Bros., Rothschilds, DuPonts, Madoffs) voluntary associations of all kinds (AMA. AARP, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Socialist Party, OWS, etc etc)” and go out even further to include JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the other broker/dealers (some of which aren’t even American) and further yet to the incorporation of corporations as embodied by the BIS and IMF. Do you recognize any names in the foregoing that Congress deemed “Too Big To Fail” in that their demise would collapse the entire world-wide economy (and to which The People are now indebted for $trillion$)? Some corporations are very different on that score ! Reductio by generalization is going to get pretty absurdum if we play dumb over some self-evident realities.

    “But your claim seems to be that this (injurious effects) has something to do with the corporate form itself,……………….”
    My objection is not so much to the form itself, but the terms and conditions under which it is created. The Constitution itself is a charter granted by the (self-proclaimed) sovereign individuals comprising the American colonies and its terms were quite restrictive in regards to how much “sovereignty” The People would relinquish to the resulting “corporation” (USA). A whole lot of thought went into that writing; drawing on the wisdom of philosophers from Socrates to Locke and culminating in the Federalist Papers to shape the most enlightened social contract ever written. Compare that to the founding charter of a commercial bank. Without limitations, a bank can POTENTIALLY grow to own the world just as easily as rich nations have the potential to rule the world. I don’t have as much a problem with Congress’ constitutional potential to rule the world as I have with banks’ potential to own the world because The People ratified the Constitution whereas they did not ratify the banks’ charters; given that both have the potential for unlimited power but only one guarantees a degree of personal sovereignty. Eighteenth century politics saw The Church as a threat to national unity and our Constitution was written to exclude it from participation in the political process, but the potential power of incorporation applied to private business was still relatively unknown (Hamilton might have) and was subsequently left un-addressed in the final document. (Equating Money to Religion might even have the same effect as revoking personhood in this case) European sovereigns also chartered corporations to do their dirty work (privateers) and generate tax revenue (East India Co) but I believe they were successful because the sovereign retained sovereignty over them. We did not. We “merged” with them (The Fed).

    “or that it’s something inherent in corporations that makes them different from anything else.”
    I think the difference is that of individual human nature vs mob mentality. Did you see the documentary on ordinarily peaceful chimpanzees that would somehow gang-up and go on a killing rampage? I think we still have vestiges of that behavior in our DNA that manifests itself in a milder form as greed. Maybe money is the civilized equivalent of territory. I don’t think we could call it evil; but it doesn’t serve the process of civilization. Is that too far-out?

    BTW: I appreciate the dialog. I’m not a lawyer, I’m an inventor, and I’m learning some new thinking here in hopes of solving the world’s problems ;<)

    Like

    • Without limitations, a bank can POTENTIALLY grow to own the world just as easily as rich nations have the potential to rule the world.

      But so could an individual. So could a partnership. In any case, this is not a problem, as a practical matter. No one and nothing has ever “ruled the world” or “owned” the world. And even if that was possible, it has nothing to do with corporations as such.

      Corporations can be publicly traded or privately held. They can be huge or tiny. There are anti-trust laws regarding corporations – or, significantly, anyone or anything else – that engages in restraint of trade activities or monopoly, although these laws are controversial and probably don’t achieve their desired goals.

      I hope it doesn’t sound obtuse but I still don’t understand just what you think constitutional restrictions on corporations are going to accomplish, or what problem you think you are addressing by proposing them. I don’t see anything self evident about any of this.

      Corporations are not “shadowy”. They are publicly registered and their ownership and management can be readily ascertained, most of the time anyway. The USA is not a “corporation”, and neither is any state, although municipalities and other public entities can be “incorporated” but this is just for ease of understanding and function.

      There are many reasons to object to corruptions of all kinds that you are alluding to, but corporations as some kind of bugaboo aren’t among them.

      Like

  8. “…………………………..so could an individual. So could a partnership.”
    I’m trying to think of an individual or partnership that even owns a Federal Reserve broker/dealership and I’m coming up with a blank. I can’t think of an individual that even has a toe in the door. Do you know of any?

    “In any case, this is not a problem, as a practical matter. No one and nothing has ever “ruled the world” or “owned” the world. And even if that was possible, it has nothing to do with corporations as such.”
    If you’ve been following the progress of global banking toward centralization and globalization you can’t help but notice that fewer banks hold more assets than at any time previous and they’re so over-leveraged they feel compelled to own pieces of each other to hedge their risks. You must have heard that the ECB can impose “austerity” on sovereign nations of the EU and that the Federal Reserve is bailing them all out with American debt. Of course you wouldn’t know the exact details unless you could decypher banker-ese as well as you undestand legal-ese but you surely get the gist of it circumstantially don’t you?. The system is so complex now that even the ratings agencies can’t find insolvency while it’s biting their asses. Nevertheless, this handful of banks through which all commerce flows, are members of still another centralized banking system; the IMF. What would you call it when one bank makes the rules for all the other banks? No. World domination hasn’t happened yet . There are still, gee – 20 players left in this game of musical chairs. Let’s wait to see who controls the last bank standing. I’m going to apply for the job as CEO because I want to rule the world.

    “Corporations can be publicly traded or privately held. They can be huge or tiny. There are anti-trust laws regarding corporations – or, significantly, anyone or anything else – that engages in restraint of trade activities or monopoly, although these laws are controversial and probably don’t achieve their desired goals.”
    When was the last time we saw anti-trust applied to a corporation. They didn’t achieve anything because the defendants had the Constitutional rights of a human person. I think you know that, too.

    “ I hope it doesn’t sound obtuse but I still don’t understand just what you think constitutional restrictions on corporations are going to accomplish, or what problem you think you are addressing by proposing them.”
    Maybe that’s because you haven’t followed the unfolding exposure of accounting chicanery and outright fraud being practiced by Wall Street corporations, the Fed, and Washington regulators lately. Are you familiar with “regulatory capture”? The Constitutional restrictions I’m proposing would simply impose rules of conduct on institutions for which there is currently no human consequences for the misdeeds of management. If the corporations can’t be punished for crimes then their charters should make it punishable crime, in itself, to violate the terms of a charter. To me, the problem with incorporation by registration is lack of accountability and since all corporations are somewhat unique it follows that their charters would also have to contain certain provisions unique to its circumstances. Certain charters could contain prohibitions against derivative trading for instance. What it would do is prevent a regulation meant for one type of corporation from being applied haphazzardly (in most cases) to smaller corporations and private businesses to which it doesn’t apply, causing undue hardship. I think industry-specific accounting standards could be imposed and random audits permitted. There’s no end to the possibilities for charter restrictions and I’m not saying it would be easy; only that it’s necessary to impose morality on institutions that inately lack it. I know morality can’t be legislated but I think it can be applied specifically to selected industries through charter terms.

    I don’t see anything self evident about any of this. Corporations are not “shadowy”. They are publicly registered and their ownership and management can be readily ascertained, most of the time anyway.”
    Self evident was probably the wrong phrase; evident-if-you-look-around-a-little might have been more appropriate. And you think Enron and MF Global were isolated instances? Off-shore accounts? Sub-corps? Everything is up-and-up?

    The USA is not a “corporation”, and neither is any state, although municipalities and other public entities can be “incorporated” but this is just for ease of understanding and function.”
    When collectives incorporate, it’s a corporation; I use it broadly.

    “There are many reasons to object to corruptions of all kinds that you are alluding to, but corporations as some kind of bugaboo aren’t among them.”
    Again; it’s not about corporations being evil bugaboos, it’s about the terms and conditions under which they’re chartered that I object to. Corruption will be greatly reduced by defining the rules and holding management responsible. As it is, corporate culture breeds corruption. That culture needs special rules not found in criminal law.

    Like

    • Corporations do not have the “constitutional rights of a human person”. They are treated as “persons” in the law for some things and not for others. When that happens it is a legal convention with no greater significance than requiring contracts for land to be in writing in order to be enforceable. There is no “conspiracy” to elevate corporations over persons, and this meme is often trotted out as some kind of moral outrage when it’s nothing of the kind.

      “Corporate culture” might be a useful shorthand phrase to describe big American business generally. It is not useful in the slightest for thinking about the things that you are trying to think about: writing laws. It is too vague and too susceptible of varying interpretations depending on someone’s agenda to make someone a criminal over it, to say nothing of altering the constitution of the US.

      You’ve alluded to all kinds of “corruption” issues and these are certainly present, and out there. The problem with your thinking is that you have focused on something – “corporations” – that has nothing to do with those issues. I have a post up today that deals with part of the problem, but was the pizza shop owner doing business in the corporate form? It makes no difference whatever. I would just be focusing on the wrong thing to even bring it up.

      It so happens that the vast majority of big business in the US is done in the corporate form. There are exceptions: Berkshire Hathaway is a partnership, I believe. But the corporate form is not causally connected to the corruption problems in any identifiable way.

      You still have not cited anything inherent in the corporate form that necessarily entails the corruption you complain about.

      This is what you are doing: you observe that every time you see a house fire in your town there are firemen there, and you are concluding that therefore the firemen cause the fires. You couldn’t be more far off.

      Like

  9. “Corporations do not have the “constitutional rights of a human person”. They are treated as “persons” in the law for some things and not for others. When that happens it is a legal convention with no greater significance than requiring contracts for land to be in writing in order to be enforceable.”
    But you agree that corporations have some constitutional rights and others that are selectively enforced, yes?

    “There is no “conspiracy” to elevate corporations over persons, and this meme is often trotted out as some kind of moral outrage when it’s nothing of the kind.”
    I’ve been kicked off PrisonPlanet and DailyBell blogs for attacking their conspiracy theories. NO; I am not a conspiracist. I blame it all on a faulty legal system that supports an equally flawed economic system. I doubt that very many in either specialty understand their relationship to the other. I get into these debates with economists, bankers, traders, judges, academics, historians, philosophers, and 31st degree Illuminatti wazoos whose world-views almost always reflect their unique perspective. Being a retired entrepreneur, with no intellectual territory to defend nor dog in the hunt, my purpose here is to diagram the working parts and determine where they might wear out; or rub. Call mine a logical outrage.

    “”Corporate culture” might be a useful shorthand phrase to describe big American business generally.”
    I like it.

    “It is not useful in the slightest for thinking about the things that you are trying to think about: writing laws.”
    I’m not talking about writing laws; I’m working with several groups to amend the Constitution and I’m here specifically to iron out the legal ramifications my wording would have as opposed to various other amendment proposals with the same or similar intent. You’re speciality is obviously not corporate or constitutional law and that’s what makes it interesting to me. Lawyers that do specialize in those disciplines can’t seem to “think outside the box” of status quo and precedent. It’s easier when you don’t have a box to think outside of.

    “It is too vague and too susceptible of varying interpretations depending on someone’s agenda to make someone a criminal over it, to say nothing of altering the constitution of the US.”
    But isn’t that a problem with all laws? Isn’t that why we have a jury system? And isn’t that why our Founders wrote the Article Five?

    “You’ve alluded to all kinds of “corruption” issues and these are certainly present, and out there. The problem with your thinking is that you have focused on something – “corporations” – that has nothing to do with those issues.”
    Corruption comes in many shapes, sizes, and colors but they all seem to stem from the incorporation of special interests into legal entities; starting with the USA itself. Our Founders themselves were rightfully afraid of the power such incorporation could create and severely restricted its power in the written charter: our Constitution. No such restrictions are contained in the charters of a commonly registered US corporation. Do you not see the imbalance there? Collectives, through incorporation, become forces. Societies become nations. Businesses become something we haven’t really defined very well yet; but they’re so powerful they can impose “austerity” on sovereign nations. See ECB vs Greece. It’s hard to find a leader, an ideology, or a conspiracy behind the endless centralization taking place in the world but the system enabling it is readily apparent. The same system enables big banks to side-step government regulation with impunity. If the system is defined by the Constitution, we need to amend that definiton. That’s the source.

    “…………………………………But the corporate form is not causally connected to the corruption problems in any identifiable way. You still have not cited anything inherent in the corporate form that necessarily entails the corruption you complain about…….”
    Would it be better to say: “Corporate legal status is causally connected to systemic corruption”? And what would I need to cite to make that causal relatonship identifiable? I’ll be happy to do the research.

    BTW: Thanks for your time and effort.

    Like

    • The problem is I don’t think the hypothesis is viable. There are probably millions of corporations that have nothing to do with the corruption you are legitimately concerned about. Only a tiny handful are a problem, and that is not because they are corporations but because of other reasons.

      I agree that systemic corruption is a problem. It’s far deeper than any particular form for doing business, which is all that a corporation is. At its deepest level it’s a spiritual and moral problem. But at the deepest practical level that can be addressed through law and policy it is a problem with the monetary system, which is an area of both law and economics. So I have focused on that. You might take a look at these:

      http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/money-ii/

      http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/money-iii/

      http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/the-gold-standard/

      http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/gold-standard-ii/

      There’s a lot to know and understand about this subject. It’s more about thinking – rigorous thinking – than it is about reading. But those posts are a start, maybe.

      Like

      • “……..There are probably millions of corporations that have nothing to do with the corruption….”
        True.

        “Only a tiny handful are a problem,…………………………….because of other reasons.”
        Because only a tiny handful attain the financial size and legal leverage to effectively thwart justice in the courts and manipulate the legislation of policy necessary to regulate them. Two aspects of financial force (created by the act of incorporating) come into play in this scenario: deferred prosecution agreements and regulatory capture. The is where the worst of both bureaucratic worlds, public and private, agree to cover their own asses at the expense of social or capitalistic ideals. Where is the adult in the room? Congress can’t question a corporation. All Congress can do is question the managers of a corporation. The managers have 5th Amendment and all the other rights of citizens so corporate fraud is reduced to bureacratic accounting errors in a cloud of misinterpreted compliance measures. If corporate charters specified the accounting methods to be used and up-dated daily for availability to government regulators at any time; and if the burden of proof was on the corporation (as it is with tax payers under IRS); and if violation of those terms were a crime in itself; you’d see an immediate reduction in corporate fraud. Such provisions in the charters of the 27,000,000 honest corporations wouldn’t change a thing in their lives because those conditions are already understood. Such provisions in the charter of JP Morgan would put them all in jail.

        That’s the chicken, here’s the egg: bureaucratic regulators in DOJ can make more money working for a private corporation: their charter should forbid corporate employment for ten years. The revolving door is an open invitation to fraud on both sides. I think it’s covered in my phrasing of “corporate interference” but better wording might be needed.

        “At its deepest level it’s a spiritual and moral problem.”
        I think we’ll always have the spiritual and moral problem; but isn’t the rule of law supposed to limit or prevent its manifestation?

        “But at the deepest practical level that can be addressed through law and policy it is a problem with the monetary system, which is an area of both law and economics.”
        The monetary system is only one component of the economic system. The economic system is only one component of the social system. The Law is another component of the social system. It is the function of a political system to design a social system that satisfies both. Capitalism seems to work, even with the impediment of faulty business models (incorporated sovereign entities) to some extent, and we’re a global power because of it; but we see now that the ensuing corruption threatens to destabilize the society that can’t control it.

        It’s good to see you’re particating in the economic debates. If you Google William Falberg you’ll see page after page of my own economic mud wrestling on various forums. I’m coming to the opinion that any system works or fails in proportion to the degree it’s uniform, consistent, and fair to all players. I think it was even common wisdom for a long time that our monetary system only worked so long as people believed in it. Bank runs are the result of lost faith. I think the aforementioned Annual Report of the Dallas Fed was a convincing citation for that view. I think Mr. Rosenblum is struggling to justify the sovereignty of Fed just as Wall Street will struggle to maintain the sovereignty of all corporations; but there’s only room for one sovereign in a society that seeks liberty for all. My amendment would clarify that legally. (?)

        Like

  10. I think Harvey Rosenblum, head of research for the Dallas Fed, beat me to the punch on that, read page 17 of the 2011 Federal Reserve Annual Statement:

    http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11.pdf

    I e-mailed him a copy of my same amendment proposal and I’ll get back here if he gets back to me. I think he makes my point re: the futility of broad-sword regulation (unintended consequences) as an appropriate way to impose sanity on a complex system. He also makes a clear distinction between capitalism and “American capitalism” (which I understand as corporate capitalism).

    This is why I think economists and lawyers really need to put their heads together on this for the good of society.

    Like

    • I agree economists and lawyers need to put their heads together, only this time lawyers need to assert themselves and economists need to understand that people are governed by law and not by mathematical models dreamed up by economists.

      Like

  11. This article by Bill Black forces me to rethink my proposed 28th Amendment to address the standardization of accounting practices in a boiler-plate addition to corporate charters subject to my third provision demanding corporal punishment for offenders. Is there an accountant that could design a system without ambiguity around here? I think Bill Black makes the point also that corporate charters
    really need to be imposed at the federal level to avoid such ambiguity.

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/04/the-silver-anniversary-of-the-keating-five-meeting-citizens-uniteds-precursor.html#more-1972

    MoveToAmend’s toothless proposal for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution was a huge disappointment to me for its reliance on state legislatures to impose a rule of law on corporate sovereignty (…exactly how we ended up with the current system). It reads so vague you have to wonder if it would have any effect at all on the status quo. I parsed its meaning, in plain language, out for them and got a reply stating that the matter is settled and not up for debate. Well……….maybe not there; ………………but here??? I think before we make ANY new laws it should be decided in no uncertain terms who is *sovereign* in the US of A. It always seems to come down to “states’ rights” issues; and maybe interstate commerce needs more regulation at the federal level, but aimed more specifically at corporate interstate commerce and less at proprietary interstate commerce. Just some thoughts…Here’s MTA’s (weak) version:

    “Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
    “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
    “Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
    “The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
    “Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
    “Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
    “Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
    “The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
    “Section 3
    “Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

    Like

  12. You and I have not crossed paths in 20-odd years, since you were practicing with Reyes. I thought I’d say hello. I’m hoping you’re not estranged from brother MJR and will deliver an abrazo from me. I was a client of his back in the day.

    Like

    • I’m afraid I don’t know who you are, and I’m assuming you’re not using your real name. I’m not estranged from Mike, not sure why you would ask that. The blog you link to seems to be inactive but there’s enough there that I have a few guesses about your identity.

      You can email directly if you like. I won’t mind.

      On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Lawyers on Strike wrote:

      >

      Like

  13. There are always the vicissitudes of life. I had understood he had relocated to Allegany County at one point and it is my understanding that you’re now in Toronto and no longer practicing. Could not imagine what the story was there. Pleased to hear you’re on passable terms.

    It was a discrete case about 25 years ago and we just met with your brother about it, not you or Mr. Reyes. The employment I had proximate to that time was such that I was running into one of the three of you quite regularly. I only ever had the briefest of exchanges with you and Mr. Reyes, and I think you’d draw a blank if you saw the name I use on my tax returns, but your brother and I would converse and he might still recall me. I left Rochester in 1995, but I do spelunk about to try to see what he’s up to, and that’s how I find myself here. He’s done me favors, but I’ve not had occasion to do him any.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s