RSS

Persons Owning Persons

12 Aug

"Persons . . .  persons who OWN persons . . .  are the GREEDIEST persons . . . in the world."

“Persons . . . persons who OWN persons . . . are the GREEDIEST persons . . . in the world.”

I recently received the following email:

Hi Alfred,
After reading your blog and others I have been doing some thinking. I was on a long drive yesterday and I came to a realization. If corporations are people and enjoy the privileges of being people then how can they own other corporations?  Isn’t that the textbook definition of slavery?

Christian

I replied, in part, as follows:

Hi Christian,

That’s an interesting insight, but it’s mistaken in this regard:  Corporations are not “people”—they’re “persons“.

I.e., you and I are deemed to be flesh and blood “people” under our “Declaration of Independence,” State constitutions and the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.  However, under the 14th Amendment (“All persons born or naturalized . . . ,” adopted A.D. 1868) we are presumed to be “persons“.  Later, in some Supreme Court case, the Supremes implied that corporations are also “persons”.

Nevertheless, you’re right.  It’s intriguing to see that at least some “persons” (living, flesh-and-blood, like you and I) can own other “persons” (corporations and other legal fictions).  The fact that at least some persons can be owned, bought and sold indicates that at least some “persons” (fictions) are things rather than “people” (men and women made in God’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights).

More, in addition to living “persons” owning fictional “persons,” some fictional “persons” (like corporations) can also own other fictional “persons” (like corporations, partnerships, etc.).

This implies that all fictional persons can be owned, bought and sold by both other fictional persons (corporations, etc.) as well as living “persons” like you and me.

If some “persons” (corporations; legal fictions) are things that can be owned, bought and sold in commerce, does it necessarily follow that all “persons” (including living persons like you and I) are presumed to be things that can be owned, bought and sold?

No, it does not necessarily follow—but it is possible.

Presumably—but not necessarily—it’s only the legal fictions (corporate “persons”) that are treated as “things” while “living persons” (you and I) cannot be deemed to be “things” and cannot be owned, bought or sold.

So, let’s suppose that, under the 14th Amendment, all “persons” (both fictions and flesh and blood) were deemed to be “things”.  Would it follow that (under the 13th Amendment ) subjecting “people” to political slavery is now unconstitutional—but under the 14th Amendment all “persons” could be owned, bought, sold and virtually  “enslaved” under the guise of commerce?

We know that living “persons” (like you and I) can own fictional “persons” (like corporations.)   We also know that fictional “persons” (like corporations, etc.) can own other fictional “persons” (like corporations). What we don’t clearly understand is whether fictional “persons” (corporations, etc.) can also own living “persons” (like you and me)–and that’s a very important question.

If all “persons” (both living and fictional) can be virtually enslaved (owned, bought and sold) in commerce, it would suggest that while the 13th Amendment helped eliminate the political slavery of people, the 14th Amendment may have helped establish commercial slavery of persons.

This conjecture may be unlikely.  Still, it would be ironic if the 13th Amendment ended political slavery of the “People” while the 14th Amendment helped create a new form of slavery—commercial slavery for the “persons”.  If that were true, then the 14th Amendment would be a kind of “repeal” of the 13th Amendment.

I.e., if the 13th Amendment (A.D.1865) prohibited all political slavery of the people, did the Powers That Be quickly respond with the 14th Amendment (A.D.1868) that allowed virtual “slavery” of persons by means of commerce?

Is it possible that “Alfred Adask” (one of the People) can’t be legally subjected to political slavery, but “ALFRED N ADASK” (one of the “persons”?) is presumed to be a “thing” that can be owned, bought, sold and virtually enslaved in commerce?

If it were true that “political” slavery for “people” had been supplanted by “commercial” slavery for persons/things, there’d be at least one fundamental difference between the two varieties of “slavery”.  Political slavery would be primarily involuntary and achieved by force.  One man or group would enslave another man or group by virtue of superior power.  You could be enslaved politically without your consent.

But commercial “slavery” (being owned, bought or sold) might have to be voluntary.  I.e., you might not be subject to commercial “slavery” unless you consented or were at least presumed to have consented by your silence and/or failure to effectively object to being treated as a “thing”.

If I use the name “ALFRED N ADASK” without objection or qualification, have I thereby created sufficient evidence to allow the presumption that I’ve consented to act in, and be treated in, the capacity of a person-thing in commerce capable of being owned, bought, sold and virtually enslaved?

Watcha think, reader?

Do you see any significance or worthwhile insight in the fact that at least some “persons” can own, buy and sell other “persons”?

Do you think that all “persons” (both living and fictional) are capable of being owned, bought, sold and virtually enslaved in commerce?

Or is it only the legal fictions (corporations, trusts, etc.) that are the kind of “persons” that are “things” and therefore subject to being owned, bought, sold and enslaved—while “living persons” (flesh and blood) are still exempt from being treated as “things” and therefore not subject to being owned, bought, sold or commercially enslaved?

Inquiring minds . . . .

 

[Incidentally, for those of you who find significance in numbers, this article is the 1,234th post on this blog.]

 

Tags: , , , , ,

26 responses to “Persons Owning Persons

  1. Michael

    August 12, 2013 at 2:59 AM

    You are correct to say a “thing-ficticious person” can own another “thing-ficticious person” but cannot own a human. It is incorrect to say that “political” slavery is prohibited” by the 13th amendment. I would say that “physical slavery is prohibited” by the 13th. I also think it is incorrect to say that the 14th allows “commercial slavery”. Prior to the 14th, the right of a free individual to enter into a contract already existed. Under a contract, you may be bound to perform some work or take some action. For example you may contract to work 8 hours a day. Does that make you a slave for those 8 hours? No, because the contract also specified the consideration you would receive in exchange for your labor. If the govt. withholds payroll taxes from your pay, the govt. has made you a partial slave (if 7.65% is withheld, you are 7.65% a slave). Was it the 14th that enabled that? Are you partially enslaved because you are engaged in commerce? Maybe you are a political slave to your own govt. Interesting, indeed.

     
    • Cody

      August 13, 2013 at 1:29 AM

       
      • Johnny Jazz

        May 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM

        ABOVE LINK WORKS. CODY. Your Link Is 404 Not Found

         
  2. Jetlag

    August 12, 2013 at 5:25 AM

    The original reasoning behind the doctrine of corporate personhood was that individual persons acting corporately (i.e. collectively) should retain many of the same common law rights as when they act individually.

    This corporate person is an ensemble of the individual persons who collectively own and control it.

    ALFRED N ADASK (without an “Inc.” or similar – known as a “legal ending” – which is usually a required element in the name of a corporation) is not a corporate person, since you consist of only one individual.

    By definition, a corporate thing consists of two or more individual things, so an individual person cannot be a corporate person.

     
    • Adask

      August 12, 2013 at 7:08 AM

      Maybe so, but using the name “ALFRED N ADASK” does not necessarily mean I’m acting only as an isolated “individual”. It might also indicate that I’m acting in the capacity of one who is an “individual” MEMBER of some larger corporate or collective body such as “U.S. persons” or “U.S. citizens”. If the name “ALFRED N ADASK” creates the presumption that I’m acting the capacity of a member of some “corporation” composed of me and other similar “individuals,” use of that name could still signify a “corporate capacity” even though I’m acting an “individual” member of that corporation.

       
  3. palani

    August 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM

    The clearest definition of ‘person’ I have been able to find is in Hobbes Leviathan (ch 16). He makes it perfectly clear that a ‘person’ is 1) a word 2) an action and 3) representation or any one of them. The action might be that of holding on to a Federal Reserve note. The word might be one that causes injury to anothers reputation. Representation is involvement in the political process or having an agent.

    Can a word own a word? Can a word own an action? Can a word be represented? Can an action own an action? Can an action own a word? Can an action be represented? Can a representative or agent own a representative or an agent? Can a representative own a word? Can a representative own an action? These relations pretty much covers all bases of possible ownership in the universe of ‘persons’.

    When it comes to representatives it appears that they might indeed own two or more hats simultaneously. One representative might be the president of one corporation and at the same time the representative of another or a dozen other corporations. An attorney (the ULTIMATE representative) might have dozens of ‘clients’ at the same time.

    Corporations have no hands. They have no feet. They cannot speak. They cannot write. They cannot even taste, feel, smell and are incapable of being placed into jail. Without hands or feet they cannot possess. Without possession there is no ownership. With no ownership there can be no slavery.

     
  4. Harry

    August 12, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    Great question.

    Somewhat irrelevant because the problem is not one of slavery, but one of fraud.

    It is called USURY, but the majority of the people think that USURY is the charging of excessive interest, when it really is not that at all.

    USURY is the fact someone is charging interest on something that does not reproduce itself.

    If you charge interest on something barren, that means you cannot outright comply with the terms of the contract objectively.

    You will always be at the mercy of the creditor to comply with your end of the bargain, this is what makes it a fraud, and enables those that know the game to play you like a fiddle.

     
  5. Robert A. McKeown

    August 12, 2013 at 8:45 AM

    Excellent as usual Al. Coincidentally, I just wrote an article about this : http://thebluecollareconomist.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/bonds-and-bondage-who-owns-who/

    The Act of 1871 is key to all of this. Worth the research.

     
    • Adask

      August 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      “Great minds,” hmm?

       
  6. Dennis Hammond

    August 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    As simple as this sounds the IRS considers us all corporations simply by spelling our names with all capital letters. Hence since a corporation is the only entity that can make income that is taxable the system had to have a way recognize us as corporations. Slaves….or owned by the corporation known as the IRS.

     
  7. pop de adam

    August 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM

    One of the privileges corporations enjoy is limited liability, the people themselves don’t. As fictional entity a corporation can suffer a number of penalties for both criminal and civil violations as remedy. It is obvious there is someting amiss, when the people find themselves at full liability(prison or jail time) for something a corporation may find itself fully insulated from. It seems the system as it is, presumes you to be an agent or officer of this fiction and isn’t penalizing the fiction for its transgressions, so much as it is penalizing the human for negligence of their fiduciary duties in respect to this fiction they had no notion they are deemed a part of.

    Just my two cents.

     
  8. Adrian

    August 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM

    However there is a remedy to all these problems: STOP acting as a corporation,as an agent for one
    or a fiduciery. Be a man and claim your natural rights.
    If you ever have to enter into a lawful contract,reserve your natural rights at the time of signing.
    At a later time if you feel that you have to get out of it,revoke your intent to keep your promise,
    you have a good bargain to get out.
    Corporations do not own men/women,they can force them to perform under contract.
    So,always know who you are and claim your natural rights.

    We can only succeed in numbers.

     
  9. Zeke

    August 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM

    My research shows the standards regarding ownership of another person comes under the area of law known as the “master servant” relationship, voluntary and involuntary.
    After involuntary servitude was outlawed, Dredd Scott decision, 13th amendment, 14th amendment, act of 1871, the standard changed to “employee employer” relationship.

    The use of all capital letters in your name is not the presumption that one is in or out of commerce. That presumption is made regardless of how one spells their name, or even pronounces their name. It’s a presumption, based on the reasoning that they are corporate and so are you, and it will be acted upon by the agents of corporate government until it is REBUTTED. Usually to rebut it, one needs to use Due Process.

     
  10. Martens

    August 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM

    A question I’m still puzzling over is whether the all-capitals version of one’s name is really a different name or merely an alternate spelling of the same name.

    If it’s really a different name, someone should be able to cite a concrete example in which the all-capitals version of a word, any word, and the conventionally capitalized version of the same word were legally recognized as referencing two different entities.

    If there is no such precedence, then the all-capitals version of one’s name is merely an alternate spelling of the same name.

     
    • Felipe

      August 12, 2013 at 10:51 PM

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idem_sonans

      Idem sonans is a legal doctrine whereby a person’s identity is presumed known despite the misspelling of his or her name. The presumption lies in the similarity between the Phonology, or sounds of the correct name and the name as written. Such similar-sounding words are called a homonym, while similar-sounding phrases or names would be a holorime.

      In Latin it means “Sounding the same.” [1] Some examples are Seagrave/Segrave, Hutson/Hudson, Coonrad/Conrad, Keen/Keene, and Diadema/Deadema.[1]

       
      • Martens

        August 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM

        @Felipe

        Thanks for the useful article. Finally something solid on this topic.

        The doctrine of “idem sonans” tells us the all-capitals version of a name is legally the same name as the conventionally capitalized version. That is, rather than being two different names, they are two different spellings of the same name, legally speaking.

        Therefore, when someone mails a notice to the all-capitals version of your name, at the all-capitals version of your street address, etc., the notice is addressed to you.

        Here’s more, from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition:

        Two names are said to be “idem sonantes” if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced, or if common and long-continued usage has by corruption or abbreviation made them identical in pronunciation. The rule of “idem sonans” is that absolute accuracy in spelling names is not required in a legal document or proceedings either civil or criminal; that if the name, as spelled in the document, though different from the correct spelling thereof, conveys to the ear, when pronounced according to the commonly accepted methods, a sound practically identical with the correct name as commonly pronounced, the name thus given is a sufficient identification of the individual referred to, and no advantage can be taken of the clerical error. The doctrine of “idem sonans” has been much enlarged by decisions, to conform to the growing rule that a variance, to be material, must be such as has misled the opposite party to his prejudice.

         
    • pop de adam

      August 13, 2013 at 9:47 AM

      Is Martens your exclusive name? Other people who use or have the name Martens might take issue or object to this. Can the restaurant McDonalds make this an issue with other people or even restaurants named McDonald that are not presenting themselves as the “Golden Arches” franchise? A similar disconnect occurs with numbers for many people; Is this your social security number? A response might consist of; Are you suggesting I can own a number?, I am a number? Perhaps even; The Social Security Administration issued this number, If you ask them I’m quite certain they will claim this number and account are their property, thus the resistance to any attempt to extinguish it. If it’s not actually yours why are people deemed responsible for it?

      I suppose someone could author a number such as the fantastic examples mathematicians and phycisists come up with, but I doubt most would venture a claim to own it.

      If we were not so conditioned to this, it would seem silly. Similar things happen in court when asked for your name; Why would I want to give YOU MY name? What do YOU intend to do with and in MY name? If I give YOU MY name will it be used against me?

       
  11. Pen Tale

    August 12, 2013 at 8:16 PM

    Were it not vor the unnlzwful adoption of the 14th Amendment there would not be a corpoate person. It is a scam against state citizen and non-white non-citizens. Nullify this monster and it willall go away.

     
  12. Felipe

    August 12, 2013 at 11:19 PM

    What do you think of this concept:

    India: Dolphins declared non-human persons
    http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/05-08-2013/125310-dolphins_india-0/

     
    • Adask

      August 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM

      Will these aquatic-mammal “persons” be allowed to vote? Can they “run” (swim) for public office?

       
  13. Adrian

    August 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM

    Whenever coms to all capital letters names,you should make one statement: my name is my property.
    The question you should ask is: who’s property is that name( all capital leters)?
    The all capital letters name is the property of the one who created it.
    The STRAW MAN was created by the CORPORATE STATE,is THEIR property.
    All corporations are linked together,like” all roads lead to Rome”.
    Whenever you,the man/woman,associate,use it,you accept the liability for that name.

    Corporations only can do business with man/woman,under contract.
    The contract is the common denominator.

    A true governing body can govern the governed only thru a lawful voluntary contract.
    Think about UNITED STATES,is IT a true governing body?
    The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

     
  14. owlmon

    August 19, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    reading the Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act points out in plain English that persons buy sell and trade other persons and Section 35 of the Canada Interpretations Act lays is out that a person is indeed only includes a corporation…reading schedule2 in the 1984 regulation of the COCADA tells you your bonded for 8 million at 12.3% annuity…If your looking for info …just ask

     
    • Adask

      August 19, 2013 at 9:06 PM

      I’d like to see links to whatever other information you have along these lines. It’s almost certain that whatever is going on in Canadian law is also going on in US law. If we can learn to see a few important legal principles in Canadian law, it will only help to find the same or similar principles in US law.

       
      • Bobby G

        August 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        This entire “man and other animals” thing is interesting. Just for fun, I wrote PETA a letter with regards to animals. Here is a copy of the email message. I asked them to reply.

        E-MAIL: Dear members of PETA.

        This is to inform you that by definitions in the United States Code all humans, including members of PETA, are presumed to be “animals”!

        As per USC Title 21, Chapter 59, Section 321, the definition of “Food” and “drugs” are defined as follows:

        (f) The term “food” means (1) articles used for food or drink for
        man or other animals,
        (2) chewing gum, and
        (3) articles used for components of any such article.
        (g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the
        official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic
        Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of
        them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food)intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals;

        The word “other” in this phrase (man or other animals) denotes that man is the same class as animals, just merely a differet type. To seperate man from animal the statute would say “man or animals”.

        The presumption that man is an animal is contrary to the Jewish and Christian religions which teach that man was created in the image of God and has domonin over animals (Gen 1 26-28) The presumption that man is an animal is also contrary to the 2nd sentence of the Decleration of Independance which say man (meaning men and women) is endowed by his creator with unaleignable rights. Only humans God given rights, and animals do NOT have unalienable rights.

        Now that you know people are presumed to be “animals”, shouldn’t the acornym PETA now be changed to “AETA”?

        Please reply.

         
  15. Adask

    August 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    Hey Bobby G,

    Let us know if PETA replies and what they say.

     
  16. Bobby G Getahaircutnow

    October 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM

    Mr. Adask. I did not get a reply from PETA, I guess it went over their heads (?).

    I was conversing with a friend about the “man and other animals” theory and he made the following observation: No place in the entire (KJV) Bible is the word “animal” ever used, including Gen 1:26-28 which says

    “… and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    The only version of the Bible that uses the word “animals” appears to be the New International Version which says “…over the livestock and all the wild animals…”. The ESV says “.and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”. So you can see the word “animals” is only used in the NIV. Any thoughts on this?

     

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