Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

Some of you guys crack me up.
Look at this past decade. You wanted Republican, you got Republican; then you wanted Democrat, you got Democrat.
A lose-lose scenario all the way for most people and the country in general yet PAYDAY for those at the top of the wealth and power pyramid who run it all behind the scenes and ultimately scammed and cheated the people and the country into jeopardy.
If it makes some feel warm and cozy inside that their "party" is in so-called 'control', then you're the biggest suckers of them all - and there are still masses of them. That's what scares me the most

Originally posted by neo5842


I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government. Does this happen in the states a lot? and is it legal? and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime? Not being in the US, i do find some some things that go on in the legal system there very confusing, i guess i should study up on it more, but would that make any difference, especially as they seem to change it all the time, and a lot of it by judges, I mean are they elected or appointed?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i didn't want people to miss it in case it has significance to it. and i did look for it on ATS but couldn't find any reference to it anywhere. thanks.

www.veteranstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Judges can and should overrule many decisions made by government. Bills, and statues, legislation are basically partisan ideas and should never be allowed to overrule the constitution, or even citizens getting up together and pointing out that a bill or legislation is actually a crime against humanity and treason. But these judges violated the constitution instead of watchguarding government abuses of it like they should.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Unity_99]

If you can't beat them then join them sounds great but would fail
as I doubt we could get the rest of America (320 Million)to join the

We The People Corporation
We could have lobbyists
We could organize boycotts
We could have our own security
We could be a 501 C
We could have our own Vouchers for inter-company commence
We could have our own health care system
We could have a retirement plan
We could......
but getting 320 million to agree on anything.....

reply to post by neo5842


Whats the big deal this is 2010 the Internet is here all someone has to do is publish all the corporate donations or paid commercials and tell everyone , then if we dont like it we can either not vote for the candidate or not buy from the corporation in question , free speech is always better than government telling us what is and is not free speech , a government powerful enough to stymie the speech of a multi billion dollar corporation in powerful enough to decimate the common person .

---Everybody should read UNINTENDED CONSQUENCES--`A book by john ross. It exlains what some would like to do to the polititions --

I thought people on ATS were concerned about a New World Order taking over the planet.

What could be more NWO than a multinational corporate giant having enormous power, not over all America, but over the whole world at the same time?

Don't be fooled into thinking this would be ok because the NWO would do things you like. You are sacrificing "one man, one vote" that has heretofore guided our nation to the whims and profit motives of a faceless, soulless, money-driven juggernaut that would roll over us all if it got a dime by doing so.

Whether you are left or right, this decision is a disaster for our country.

Tea-Partiers and Progressives alike should fight rather than surrender to the law of the corporate jungle.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Hemisphere
You are correct Doc. This is a victory for grassroots and non-profit organizations. Perhaps unintended but a victory none-the-less. That citizens can pool their resources and compete for attention against established lobbyists is critical. Look at this special Massachusetts Senate election. Who turned the tide? It was not Barrack Obama, Rudi Giulliani, Mitt Romney, Curt Schilling, the Kennedys, media outlets or the candidates themselves. It was Tea Party activism. These were frustrated citizens spending their time and resources to connect with other frustrated citizens so as to enact change in our inattentive, elitist Senate. This ruling keeps a dissenting public voice, pressure and activism viable into the future. Whether we take the ball and run with it is another story.

So let me see if I got this straight. This is a good thing because it will NOW allow things to happen - like what just happened before the ruling? The logic in this thread is stunning. The tea party was effective, now we have this ruling allowing wal mart to buy the tea part for china and it is good because it means the tea party can be effective like it was before this ruling? WOW!

I'm not surprised by your lack of understanding. What the ruling does is to ensure that a Tea Party or similar group can continue competing against the corporate backed Keith Olbermanns, Janeane "a bunch of teabagging rednecks" Garofalos, Susan Roesgens, Anderson "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging" Coopers, Bill Moyers and all the entrenched media liberals of the world. What you fail to realize is that the upset victory in Massachusetts would and will target the Tea Party movement among others for restrictive legislation. Up until now browbeating by the liberal media was considered to be enough opposition to these movements. But this victory was a true blindsiding of the leftist agenda. Even the President took this Senate seat for granted. That will not happen again and thus the ruling is well timed for everyone's sake. If you see Obama move to the center you'll know that the game has changed.

The OP's opening quote is probably right, and has nothing to do with natural law, which belongs to the Freeman versus the Strawman. The judges seem to be referring to Legalese, a big thread here somewhere.

www.abovetopsecret.com... is one thread,



[edit on 23-1-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by Hemisphere


I'm not surprised by your lack of understanding. What the ruling does is to ensure that a Tea Party or similar group can continue competing against the corporate backed Keith Olbermanns, Janeane "

So they needed a law to ensure they can CONTINUE to do something. You obviously have no clue what you are saying but then again, you think Olberman has some kind of power so you are in a fantasy land.

Psssssssssss. Janeane and Kieth only get one vote each you know. They can talk all they like but they are still just two AMERICAN people. Now you are happy that the tea baggers can continue and the chinese can take over. Way to be American!

[edit on 1/23/10 by Lillydale]

Unfortunately, the judges' DID make a Constitutional decision. The question was not, is a corporation a person? The question was, does a person have free speech, with political donations being viewed as a form of speech, in fact the only "speech" a corporation can utter.

The real problem was a long time ago:

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Edwards: The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.
In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.
But over time people forgot that corporations ad been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite.

After the Civil War, Congress passed several constitutional amendments relating to slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment gave the newly freed male slaves equal protection and due process under law, and the Fifteenth Amendment gave voting rights to these same former black male slaves.
The Fourteenth Amendment used the word "person" in the body of the amendment. This caused some confusion about who "persons" were. Did women qualify? Or corporations? The Supreme Court responded by saying that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment meant just black males.
That, however, wasn't the end of it. Corporations had a lot of money and a lot at stake, and they took case after case to court. In 1886, corporations gained a victory. Before the Supreme Court session to announce the decision in the case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Chief Justice Waite said that the court wouldn't hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment clause on equal protection applied to corporations; they all believed that it did.
The case was decided on other grounds. But, the principle that corporations have Fourteenth Amendment rights was inserted by the Supreme Court reporter in a header in the published report of the case. A couple of years later, in the case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889), the Court cited the Santa Clara case as the precedent for corporations having due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. With that, corporations became legal persons in the United States, and gained the ability to challenge in federal court regulatory actions at the state level.
Corporations had been looking for a way to control the process of state regulation and taxation. Now they were able to control it by having the federal government say you can't discriminate, when discrimination meant any rule that applied just to corporations, such as railroads. Of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with African Americans and 288 dealt with corporations. The corporations won more than 200 of these cases.
Federal regulatory agencies were also being created during this time. In 1893, corporations won a case called Nohle v. Union River Logging, which gave them Fifth Amendment due process rights against the federal as well as state governments.
For the first 100 years or so of U.S. history, Supreme Court decisions regarding corporations were made under the artificial entity corporate theory. But from 1886 or 1889 on, the justices wrote their opinions in terms of personhood, and they considered corporations to be corporate persons.

Again, those against the ruling have no understanding of what the ruling even says or is for. It's a sad day when people are still buying the media drivel and won't read the case for themselves!

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Treason? More like Patriots.

Originally posted by CaptChaos

After the Civil War, Congress passed several constitutional amendments relating to slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment gave the newly freed male slaves equal protection and due process under law, and the Fifteenth Amendment gave voting rights to these same former black male slaves.
The Fourteenth Amendment used the word "person" in the body of the amendment. This caused some confusion about who "persons" were. Did women qualify? Or corporations? The Supreme Court responded by saying that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment meant just black males.
That, however, wasn't the end of it. Corporations had a lot of money and a lot at stake, and they took case after case to court. In 1886, corporations gained a victory. Before the Supreme Court session to announce the decision in the case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Chief Justice Waite said that the court wouldn't hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment clause on equal protection applied to corporations; they all believed that it did.
The case was decided on other grounds. But, the principle that corporations have Fourteenth Amendment rights was inserted by the Supreme Court reporter in a header in the published report of the case. A couple of years later, in the case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889), the Court cited the Santa Clara case as the precedent for corporations having due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. With that, corporations became legal persons in the United States, and gained the ability to challenge in federal court regulatory actions at the state level.

A beautiful summary Captain!

One thing you did not mention was that the court reporter was a former CEO for a Railroad Company!!! So the "precedent" for corporate personhood was written in to the decision by a CEO the court did not set this precedent and was not part of the decision.

Great summary! Star for you!

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by wiredamerican

 

Look , Im not american ok, but even I know the difference between say the interests of a common man, and the interests of a faceless multinational company or corperate entity. I mean are you honestly saying that you think corperations (which could be based or owned from anywhere in the world) give a godamn about you or your fellow american?
Well if you do , then you are wrong. And incidentaly, it wont be the american people who work for these corperations who make the choice as to whom to back, whom to fund. It will be the worldwide shareholder base, whose only interest in your nation is what they can get from it.

During a significant portion of US history huge segments of the American population could not vote; to vote you had to be a land owner and a white male. Women, blacks, and non-land owners were given the vote only later, almost 100 years after the country was founded. As far as I remember, and generally speaking, the courts ruled that if you pay taxes you have a right to choose who represents you. Corporations are taxed and should have the same rights as individuals to influence an election.

I'll give you a strategy to counter a corporations ability to contribute money to a candidate-- Dont buy any of their goods or services. Practice your right to boycott.

Corporations are not faceless, they are you. Anyone who invests in a 401k, or otherwise buys stock market shares is a share-holder, and, as such, is, in part, a corporation owner. There-in lays another opportunity to divest a corporation of power; get rid of your holdings in those companies you dont agree with. If you own mutual funds you're probably unwittingly investing in companies which hold values diametrically opposed to your own. But how would you feel about a corporation which produces bombs, but which gifts money to orphanages, and abortion clinics?

Dont rely on your vote, use your wallet as well to fight bad government.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by regretable]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by regretable]

reply to post by Leo Strauss



Dear god why does everything have to be so complicated?

I want to know where the Son of Liberty are?
Where are all the "Patriots"..
hmmmm.....Where are all these groups who say they refuse to let america be hi-jacked by the governemnt?
They are just as all the rest who beat their chest during elections and decisions. They scream but produce nothing...This is a great example of how the government has control of everyone. Even the patriots! Everyone one is a slave... DEAL WITH IT!. Any one who stands up will be branded a terrorist point blank!

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

A beautiful summary Captain!

One thing you did not mention was that the court reporter was a former CEO for a Railroad Company!!! So the "precedent" for corporate personhood was written in to the decision by a CEO the court did not set this precedent and was not part of the decision.

Great summary! Star for you!

Good work trying to give the impression this is not what the court meant. Later, they wrote the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and asked hi if that headnote at the beginning of the ruling was the true intent of the court. The Chief Justice agreed that it was. You either were ignorant of this fact or willfully left it out to create a false impression.

It is complicated, I wonder if for instance, if the entities at the Federal Reserve are in fact Freemen to some technical degree, and maybe the reason, so far, why their books can't be touched?

[edit on 23-1-2010 by smurfy]

I am looking around the net and I find this from Ron Paul, 2003

by Ron Paul, Dr. December 22, 2003

In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.

blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

[edit on 073131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 073131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

A beautiful summary Captain!

One thing you did not mention was that the court reporter was a former CEO for a Railroad Company!!! So the "precedent" for corporate personhood was written in to the decision by a CEO the court did not set this precedent and was not part of the decision.

Great summary! Star for you!

Good work trying to give the impression this is not what the court meant. Later, they wrote the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and asked hi if that headnote at the beginning of the ruling was the true intent of the court. The Chief Justice agreed that it was. You either were ignorant of this fact or willfully left it out to create a false impression.

What Leo Strauss is referring to in Santa Clara is that the opinion expressed that the 14th Amendment could be used by corporations to assert rights was not holding, it was dicta. The difference between the two is that any subsequent law created by a court ruling is based solely upon what was held in that ruling, and the dicta can only serve as supporting authority for an argument.

The Santa Clara County ruling did not grant any right of corporate person hood. Subsequent rulings that assert Santa Clara County did hold this are in error.

As to the letters you speak to, the Court reporter who wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, one J.C. Bankcroft Davis, for clarification on the matter wrote a letter that asked:

"Dear Cheif Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific & Co., As follows: In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All Judges were of the opinion that it does."

Chief Justice Waite wrote in reply:

"I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting constitutional question in the decision."

Leo Strauss is not ignorant and seems to fully understand the ruling made by the Santa Clara County Court. The letters you referred to but failed to quote or even site any references to did not reveal Waite agreeing with Davis over what was held and answered the letter Davis sent to him directly and again re-iterated that that Court had "avoided" making any Constitutional ruling on the matter.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Their influence on Capitol Hill is broad – the top eight US banks spent $26m (£16m) on lobbying efforts last year, an increase of 6% on 2008 despite their financial woes, according to Congressional records. And in the first 10 months of 2009, the financial industry donated $78.2m to federal candidates and party committees – more than any other business sector – according to political research institute the Centre for Responsive Politics.

the supreme court decision to allow "big business" to dish out money to buy thier candidates means that the bankers, who have dished out the most, will have even more influence over washington d.c. than they had before... obama gave the fed more powers than ever before now the supreme court is giving them more...
[edit on 23-1-2010 by TheCoffinman]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by TheCoffinman]