Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

[Prof]

Other than municipalies and similar entities like universities, the oldest English major joint stock company corporation, the Muscovy Company, chartered in 1555, grew out of "The Company of Merchant Adventurers To New Lands." It was followed by other trading and similar companies such a the Royal West Indian Company and the East India Company. All such entities were chartered by the Crown.

[fmmcosta]

Where in your Supreme Court quote does it say that corporations are citizens?
Answer: It does not.

Where did I say that it did?
Answer: I didn't.

[The Operative]

Where in your Supreme Court quote does it say that corporations are citizens?
Answer: It does not.

Where did I say that it did?
Answer: I didn't.

You implied that it did.

You asked:

Does this mean that 14th Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights?

Pottapaug1938 replied with a brief explanation and included a statement about corporations. You replied to his statement with a quote from the Supreme Court case concerning equal protection laws and that they apply to corporations.

I did not see how your Supreme Court quote applied to Pottapaug1938's reply to your statement about 14th amendment citizens which is why I posted what I did. If you have a problem with that, oh well.

[webhick]

Where in your Supreme Court quote does it say that corporations are citizens?
Answer: It does not.

Where did I say that it did?
Answer: I didn't.

You implied that it did.

You asked:

Does this mean that 14th Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights?

Pottapaug1938 replied with a brief explanation and included a statement about corporations. You replied to his statement with a quote from the Supreme Court case concerning equal protection laws and that they apply to corporations.

I did not see how your Supreme Court quote applied to Pottapaug1938's reply to your statement about 14th amendment citizens which is why I posted what I did. If you have a problem with that, oh well.

Don't forget this which was posted here:

Didn't the Supreme Court, or whatever, ruled that corporations are persons and are protected under the 14th amendment?

Which clearly implies that the poster thinks there is a connection between the two.

[fmmcosta]

Again, you're missing the point. Your citation speaks of equal protection of the laws, not citizenship, and it talks about persons, not citizenship. A citizen of Germany, for example, could avail herself of the 14th Amendment equal protection provisions, although she is not also a U.S. citizen and is not entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Equal protection applies to everyone; and two examples that come to mind are the Nazi saboteurs from 1942, and Col. Abel, the Soviet spy.

Since you are familiar with Wikipedia, you might want to consult its article on corporate personhood, as well.

It's a person and is protected by the 14th Amendment, that's the point.

Anyway, "14th Amendment citizens" are not protected by the bill of rights. Is this correct?

[The Operative]

Anyway, "14th Amendment citizens" are not protected by the bill of rights. Is this correct?

No, that is not correct.

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, you're missing the point. Your citation speaks of equal protection of the laws, not citizenship, and it talks about persons, not citizenship. A citizen of Germany, for example, could avail herself of the 14th Amendment equal protection provisions, although she is not also a U.S. citizen and is not entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Equal protection applies to everyone; and two examples that come to mind are the Nazi saboteurs from 1942, and Col. Abel, the Soviet spy.

Since you are familiar with Wikipedia, you might want to consult its article on corporate personhood, as well.

It's a person and is protected by the 14th Amendment, that's the point.

Anyway, "14th Amendment citizens" are not protected by the bill of rights. Is this correct?

For what I very much hope is the last time: there is NO SUCH THING as a "14th Amendment citizen". I gave you the definition of US citizenship earlier, and explained that, while corporations may be artificial persons, they are NOT citizens. As for me, I was born a US citizen; and my right to citizenship was defined by the 14th Amendment. No earlier definition of citizenship remains legally valid.

[LPC]

For what I very much hope is the last time:

It's probably not.

What I find amazing is our dunce du jour's inability to understand the difference between "citizen" and "person." One would think that even a lobotomy survivor would understand that all citizens are persons but not all persons are citizens.

[fmmcosta]

For what I very much hope is the last time: there is NO SUCH THING as a "14th Amendment citizen". I gave you the definition of US citizenship earlier, and explained that, while corporations may be artificial persons, they are NOT citizens. As for me, I was born a US citizen; and my right to citizenship was defined by the 14th Amendment. No earlier definition of citizenship remains legally valid.

Do you understand the meaning of surrounding a word or words with quoting marks?

Am I talking about corporations? Where do you read the word "Corporation" on my post?

You were born a US Citizen (according to the 14th Amendment).

Are you protected by the Bill of Rights as a citizen?

According to the Supreme Court you are not. This is the point.

[fmmcosta]

For what I very much hope is the last time:

It's probably not.

What I find amazing is our dunce du jour's inability to understand the difference between "citizen" and "person." One would think that even a lobotomy survivor would understand that all citizens are persons but not all persons are citizens.

I understand the difference between citizen and person very well. The distinction between both in my country is very clear.

Citizen - individual in the enjoyment of civil and political rights of a country (from dictionary)
"singular person" - Every individual born with life is a legal person. (from legal dictionary)
legal person - is the entity to which the law gives legal personality. (from legal dictionary)
legal personality - susceptibility to hold rights and obligations, recognized to all natural persons and also organizations of people and/or property. (from legal dictionary)
"collective person" - organization of people or property aimed to achieve certain ends, to which the law confers legal personality (from legal dictionary)

[The Operative]

You were born a US Citizen (according to the 14th Amendment).

Are you protected by the Bill of Rights as a citizen?

According to the Supreme Court you are not. This is the point.

Again, you are wrong. The Supreme Court has never said any such thing. If you believe it does then you are either not understanding what you read or you are taking a quote out of context or you are quoting dicta instead of the actual holding.

In reality, what the 14th amendment did do in regards to the Bill of Rights was to ensure the protections of the Bill of Rights against encroachment applied to the states as well as the U.S. Government. For example, before the 14th amendment, the protections against searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause only applied to the laws of the United States and not state laws (See Smith v. State of Maryland, 59 US 71, 1855).

It did take the Supreme Court several years to come around to clarifying that the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to cover encroachment by state laws on individual rights but throughout the years there have been many Supreme Court rulings that clarified how the protections of the Bill of Rights were extended to state laws. See Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934); Everson. v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 3, 7, 8 (1947); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925); DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897);Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Nothing within the 14th amendment removes from individuals any of the protections of the Bill of Rights (as the courts have interpreted them). Belief in the contrary is just nonsense.

Edited to remove duplicate cite.

[wserra]

Are you protected by the Bill of Rights as a citizen?

Actually, the Bill of Rights protects you as a person.

According to the Supreme Court you are not. This is the point.

Does anyone else think this thread should be locked as unremittingly stupid?

[Pottapaug1938]

For what I very much hope is the last time: there is NO SUCH THING as a "14th Amendment citizen". I gave you the definition of US citizenship earlier, and explained that, while corporations may be artificial persons, they are NOT citizens. As for me, I was born a US citizen; and my right to citizenship was defined by the 14th Amendment. No earlier definition of citizenship remains legally valid.

Do you understand the meaning of surrounding a word or words with quoting marks?

Am I talking about corporations? Where do you read the word "Corporation" on my post?

Reread your own posts, and you'll see your own words in which you confuse corporate personhood with citizenship.

[Pottapaug1938]

I understand the difference between citizen and person very well. The distinction between both in my country is very clear.

Citizen - individual in the enjoyment of civil and political rights of a country (from dictionary)
"singular person" - Every individual born with life is a legal person. (from legal dictionary)
legal person - is the entity to which the law gives legal personality. (from legal dictionary)
legal personality - susceptibility to hold rights and obligations, recognized to all natural persons and also organizations of people and/or property. (from legal dictionary)
"collective person" - organization of people or property aimed to achieve certain ends, to which the law confers legal personality (from legal dictionary)

You want to be careful using a legal dictionary as your source. As any first year U.S. law student can tell you, a legal dictionary is at best evidence of what the law is. A lawyer arguing a point would only use a legal dictionary as a secondary resource; far more valuable (and far more likely to produce a positive result) are citations from actual (and still valid) appellate court cases, especially if they come from the same jurisdiction in which the case in question is being heard.

You also want to be careful to be consistent in your posts. You say that you understand the distinction between citizen and person, yet many of your posts show that you confuse the two.

[fmmcosta]

ok then.

let's see a few more quotes. there are plenty

The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

Allegiance to your servants?

A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other

The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution

In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ...

... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government

Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf

There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State

I bet I can find even more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you (americans) are servants, I'm saying that we all are servants of our governments.

[Gregg]

Does anyone else think this thread should be locked as unremittingly stupid?

I do, but not before I get to mention that IF (and it's a big if at best) there were any difference between citizens and 14th amendment citizens, I would think that the distinction died off some time back, as a "pre" 14th amendment citizen would be at least 147 years old.

Now, shut this stupid thread down, our new idiot is not any better than our old idiots and is getting tiring. If he's really as obtuse as he pretends, and is really in Portugal, it's at least understandable how Europe is getting more phucked up daily.

[Prof]

ok then.

let's see a few more quotes. there are plenty

The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

Allegiance to your servants?

A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other

The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution

In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ...

... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government

Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf

There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State

I bet I can find even more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you (americans) are servants, I'm saying that we all are servants of our governments.

Reading comprehension is one of the keys to understanding. Your reading comprehension is, at best, an F. For example, the quote from D'Arcy says that where a Plaintiff says, "I am not a citizen of the U.S.," and then also says "I am a citizen of Maryland," that these statements may be used by the DEFEDANT to show that Plaintiff has taken contradictory positions in order to establish jurisdiction in the US Courts in a diversity case.

The tired argument that the 14th Amendment created a different class of citizens -- individuals or human beings who are also citizens of the United States -- has been trotted up and down for years. No court has ever accepted such a distinction. The 14th Amendment did one important thing in this context. Note that the 14th is addressed to the States, and limits state action, not federal action. (Reading the actual amendment helps.) The 14th, by its language, has been deemed to incorporate the Bill of Rights, which -- until the 14th -- only limited the power of the federal government. States were free to limit the rights of citizens unless the individual state constitutions picked up (or even predated) the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion predates the Bill in Virginia (Jefferson drafted the Virginia Constitution and the lst Amendment is modeled on what he did.)

For example, Mass. had a state supported church until about 1830 (the Congregational Church). This did not violate the Bill of Rights; the Bill didn't apply to States.

In the jurisprudence after the 14th, the Supreme Court eventually applied most of the terms of the Bill of Rights to limit State law; however, a State can still grant a citizen more rights than the Bill and the 14th provide. For example, the "just compensation clause," related to takings, could be expanded by a State to require "ten times the just compensation" and that would probably not offend the US Constitution (5th Amendment incorporated by the 14th).

You just don't get it; you'll never get it.

I vote with Wes: CLOSE THIS THREAD AS NONSENSICAL

[The Operative]

ok then.

let's see a few more quotes. there are plenty

The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

So what? As has been stated previously in this thread, persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. The only exception are those that are not subject to its jurisdiction which is generally foreign diplomats and the such. This does not support your contention that the 14th amendment somehow removes the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Allegiance to your servants?

A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other

That is correct. It still doesn't support your contention.

The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution

Interesting. Since that case was decided BEFORE the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it obviously cannot be discussing the 14th amendment. After a cursory review of the decision, I did not find that phrase within it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, I am confidant that the court was NOT discussing the 14th amendment and that the decision doesn't mean what you think it does. Also, whatever site you copy and pasted the quote from is most likely wrong.

In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ...

So?

... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government

Quoting Paul Andrew Mitchell now? I hope you realize that he is wrong every time he opens his mouth or types a word.

Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf

Since that case predates the 14th amendment, there is no way that it can support your contention therefore, I did not even read it.

There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State

I could not find that quote within Jordan v. Tashiro 278 U.S. 123 (1928).

I bet I can find even more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you (americans) are servants, I'm saying that we all are servants of our governments.

Well, if all of your other quotes are similar to the ones that you have already posted, then you will still have not posted a single quote that supports your contention that the Bill of Rights somehow does not apply after the 14th amendment.

[Imalawman]

This thread should be closed, but I'm leaning towards keeping it open. It's on topic and people are still responding. I personally lost interest a long time ago, but we no longer adhere to the 100 post rule so long as the thread hasn't devolved into Monty Python quotes or something similar. However, this may be one of the more inane threads in the long time.

[Nikki]

Without conducting exhaustive research into the material fmmcosta (which is SO not worth my time) I speculate that he is falling into one or more of the traps that sovereignorami, tax deniers, etc encounter.

In no particular order:

Copying material from a non-authoritative source (such as PAM) without verifying the validity of the material

Citing as Court opinions material excerpted from a brief or dissenting opinion which is not actually part of the decision.

Ignoring any cases or statute which may have overruled or otherwise obsoleted the case cited.

Failing to analyze the actual meaning of the citation WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL CONTEXT

Failing to recognize jurisdictional boundaries (e.g. citing a State case as if it had relevance in the Federal arena)