[GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback

[John Thielking]

No disrespect to those who are working hard to circulate the current paper form of this amendment which I also characterize below, but we really need to slow down the process of putting forward and endorsing specific amendment language, lest we end up in the dark ages with fewer rights for those who actually do something or anything involved with the functioning of a corporation than we originally intended. For the complete amendment language that I am referring to see http://www.movetoamend.org  and look for the amendment link. Thanks.
 
John Thielking

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
To: "councilmember.reyes at lacity.org" <councilmember.reyes at lacity.org>; "councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org" <councilmember.Krekorian at lacity.org>; "councilmember.zine at lacity.org" <councilmember.zine at lacity.org>; "paul.koretz at lacity.org" <paul.koretz at lacity.org>; "councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org" <councilmember.cardenas at lacity.org>; "councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org" <councilmember.alarcon at lacity.org>; "councilmember.parks at lacity.org" <councilmember.parks at lacity.org>; "Jan.Perry at lacity.org" <Jan.Perry at lacity.org>; "councilmember.wesson at lacity.org" <councilmember.wesson at lacity.org>; "councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org" <councilman.rosendahl at lacity.org>; "councilmember.englander at lacity.org" <councilmember.englander at lacity.org>; "councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org" <councilmember.garcetti at lacity.org>; "councilmember.huizar at lacity.org" <councilmember.huizar at lacity.org>; "councildistrict15 at lacity.org" <councildistrict15 at lacity.org> 
Cc: "info at movetoamend.org" <info at movetoamend.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback


Dear LA City Council:
 
This is the message I sent to Move To Amend in response to your passage of a resolution supporting specific amendment language to deprive corporations of personhood. See below to see why I think this resolution is premature at best and a bad idea at worst.  Thank you.
 
Sincerely,
 
John Thielking
San Jose, CA

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
To: "info at movetoamend.org" <info at movetoamend.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:21 PM
Subject: Amendment Name/Feedback


I'm a longtime supporter and member of the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party in CA, and I support and occasionally participate in the Occupy movement, but I am also a small business owner (www.peacemovies.com) and I think that the first part of the latest version of your amendment leaves 99% of business owners out in the cold when it comes to their civil rights in a vain attempt to attack the rights of the 1% which have grown to be more important in our current society than the rights of the 99%.

The following statement was posted as a comment on Facebook as a response to an article posted about the LA City Council passing a resolution supporting the specific amendment language currently on your web site:

Actually, not so fast. This latest amendment would possibly classify sole proprietors operating under a ficticious business name as "non-persons".  Also, small corporations are often formed for various reasons other than evading liability and the operators of these businesses would also be "non-persons".  You want to see an Ayn Rand style of revolt from the real  job creators (small businesses employ most of the people in the US), just try passing this amendment as written.  This particular version of the Move To Amend amendment was probably created less than one month ago (there is another, much worse version still in circulation on some paper petitions).  I suspect that the founding fathers had many months if not years of deliberation before they tried to put forth any specific form of the constitution.* They were fully aware of the implications of corporate power even at that early date. Jefferson badmouthed corporations and the banking system I
 think, for instance. If they left out an amendment that strips all people involved with the functioning of a corporation of their civil rights, they must have had a good reason. If you think this amendment won't strip PEOPLE as opposed to paper entities of their rights, who do you think runs the paper entities. Who will have to give incriminating evidence against their will and have their life's work seized without a warrant? The mainframe computer that issues the payroll checks?  We can't start thinking of jobs as handouts and SETTLE for working for "the man" who may now be our slave under this amendment, but who still has the power to determine our financial future. If you want to form co-ops and SHARE responsibility and culpability when you create your financial future, fine go right ahead and do THAT.  But don't come crying home to your sugardaddy boss and ask him or her to "give you a job" while you screw him or her over with an amendment like
 this.

That is all for now.

Sincerely,

John Thielking
San Jose, CA
*Actually the founding fathers had a Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787 to September 17, 1787 (116 days). The Bill Of Rights was introduced 2 years later and was based on the Virginia Declaration Of Rights which was adopted in 1776.  So James Madison had 2 years to come up with the US Bill Of Rights after the Constitutional Convention.  And the ideas contained in the Virginia Declaration percolated for some 13 years.
And were based in part on the British Bill of Rights, adopted 100 years earlier.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20111207/30a5b858/attachment.html>