[GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback

Wed Dec 7 13:41:20 PST 2011

Spencer,

I had a simillar discussion on Facebook and one person thought my comments were totally irrelevant and nonsensical straw man arguments.  This is one of my responses to Richard (and now to you):

Another reason why I want to think this over before signing on to endorse any specific language: Let's say it did actually work the way that Richard is suggesting in that individual 5th amendment rights were preserved while requiring any member of a business organization to testify against the business while being given immunity from prosecution for their own crimes committed while at that business. This would end up mandating the same form of testimony that is given before grand jurries and that the Committee To Stop FBI repression is working so hard to stop (people involved with small non-profits or activist groups being made to testify against their friends in front of a grand jury). I need to think about the implications of that form of govt for a long time, and research to see if any other country has simillar laws and what the consequences of having those laws were, before I would agree to such an amendment.

Sincerely,

John Thielking

From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
To: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Amendment Name/Feedback

Hi, John:  

      I don't see the same problem you do.  

      The promoters of the current corrupt system are highly motivated to kill any move that will honestly limit their power.  I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the current language would strip anyone of their powers and rights as "natural persons".  This amendment would not affect the rights of sole proprietors.  It's possible that filing a fictitious name statement could create an artificial entity, but I doubt it.  Would this remove the "natural person" rights from an actor who uses a stage name?  I doubt it:  They are still "natural persons", "their houses, papers, and effects" are still theirs and therefore should still be subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment -- unless the said property belonged to a corporation they created, registered in the Bahamas as a tax dodge.  Then they would be prohibited from using the extra money they made by tax avoidance from influencing elections unduly.  

      In fact, I believe it would increase the rights of "natural persons" by giving the government the right to regulate the activities of "artificial entities".  Our current system is one dollar, one vote.  This amendment would make it easier for citizens to change this.  

      Actually, I think the "Move to Ammend" is a secondary issue:  For me the number one problem is the media.  For example, one study of found that the US public spends on average $1,645 per person more for health care than our counterparts in other developed countries, and we get less for it in terms of a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, etc.  This amounts to roughly 4% of GDP.  In other words, 4 cents of every dollar you get pays for denying insurance claims to people, medications that cost you far more than they should, newer, more expensive and less effective medications than those otherwise available, and paying doctors more than their counterparts elsewhere.  We could solve these problems if the media didn't have a conflict of interest in perpetuating all these corrupt practices.  This 4 percent is only the tip of the iceberg.  If you add corruption in the finance and defense industries, we probably pay on average
 between $4,000 and $10,000 per person per year for the "free" broadcasting and the substantial portion of the print media that is paid by advertising.  

      Spencer 

On 12/7/2011 11:14 AM, John Thielking wrote: 
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.
>
>
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web: www.structuremonitoring.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20111207/5af52b9a/attachment.html>