Purple Skies

The Establishment Clause of the United States

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment – period.

Corporations aren’t specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.

1. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 9 US 61 (1809) is an early US corporate law case decided by the US Supreme Court. It held that corporations have the capacity to sue in federal court on grounds of diversity under article three, section two of the United States Constitution.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to allow federal courts to hear diversity cases. This means that federal courts can hear cases involving parties from different states or between a state and a foreign state.

Hearing a case on the grounds of diversity does not in itself qualify a corporation as an individual in the eyes of the laws of the United States. The merits of the case were weighed in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux to determine that the bank could sue for damages. The precedent was not set that the Bank was an individual the same as a US citizen the precedent was that if an establishment of business would like to bring a case in court that they would need to utilize the diversity to clause to first seek the merit for their case. This means every business is treated the same as a foreigner and not an individual citizen.

There was no precedent set in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux that suggested that the Bank of America and all establishments of business from that point forward in history should be recognized as an “individual” with the same rights as a private US citizen to seek a redress from their government but that an establishments of business must first seek merit with their case under the diversity clause before they can proceed in the US justice system. The deliberate misinterpretation of the outcome of this case is a fraud being perpetrated on the American people by US and Foreign corporations to undermine the US justice system and the American people.

Bank of the United States v. Deveaux was the first Supreme Court case to examine corporate rights and, while it is rarely featured prominently in US legal history, it set an important precedent for the legal rights of corporations, particularly with regard to corporate personhood.

There was no “personhood” granted to any corporation under Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, that is a completely false claim that cannot be proven in a court of law.

The precedent that was set in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux was in regards to the merits of a diversity case and not the recognition of the entities bringing the case before the court. It should be established that the bank was already recognized as a “diverse or foreign entity” by bringing forth the case in the manner that it did, set a precedent that the Bank also recognized itself as diverse and foreign and not an individual citizen of the United States or it would have brought the case to a lower court.

As the court saw merit in the case to proceed under these conditions the court allowed the Bank to be represented by an individual. The entire bank did not show up un court nor was the bank recognized in court as A PERSON but during the proceedings the Bank was represented by A PERSON. This act by the formally convened “diversity” court did not magically make the Bank an “individual” it gave the court the merit to hear the case and the bank to select for themselves a “Proxy” to stand in as the “individual” so that the court could hear the case and make a determination on the merits of the law. And the diversity courts act of allowing the bank to use a “proxy” was not the precedent that was set as has been so egregiously misrepresented by the same corrupt companies and not the law. It was that the “DIVERSITY CLAUSE” must first be invoked in all cases regarding an establishment of business and that it must first be proven that the case has merit under the laws of the US or this case no matter who brings it before this body DOES NOT HAVE MERIT and will not be heard by that court. That is the law and precedent that was established and to infer that the Bank of the United States v. Deveaux had set a precedent that establishments of business have now and forever been endowed with the same inalienable rights as US citizens is a wholesale lie and a fraud. The organized effort to distort this fact in process and in production is a criminal offense under the RICO statues of the United States and constitutes organized crime and crimes against the United States.

Globally recognized banks and corporations do not pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and they cannot lawfully be recognized as an “individual” under the constitution. Globally recognized banks and corporations can not register or cast a vote in the United States elections. Corporations are not people. People are people and the US government is uniquely distinct in all of the world of people who swear an oath to uphold a constitution and consent to be governed by a government of the people for the people. And CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

Globally recognized banks and corporations can not take an oath to the constitution, nor do they uphold the laws and civic duties of the United States. Globally recognized banks and corporations act as if they are ABOVE the law and use the US justice system as a weapon against the American people.

The word individual is an adjective in the English language it has a very distinct meaning of being one thing that is not divided or able to be divided into to two things, it is one thing and not a collective of people or things – it is an individual that is indivisible from their inalienable rights and corporations are not individuals nor are they indivisible from any rights to cease to exists as a corporation there are many laws that could be applied to them such as anti-trust and RICO that could not be applied to an individual acting alone for the benefit of themselves. Corporations always act in accordance to the group and not the individual because that was the whole point of incorporating in the first place which was to compel the company forward with the collective strengths of the individuals within the company and not the individual themselves.

The definition of an “Individual”, does not apply to a group of people, a union, or a collective of something that is the definition of a “Company”, or an “Incorporation”.

Individual;

1.         Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human. “individual consciousness.”


            2.         By or for one person. “individual work; an individual portion.”


            3.         Existing as a distinct entity; separate. “individual drops of rain.”


The word individual means not dividable by more than one – and companies are made up of thousands of individuals not just one person or represented by one who does not already have a right to vote as an individual but now with this unlawful recognition of an establishment as an individual many individuals have more than one vote and more than one voice in a free and fair election that is not free or fair when the largest corporations in the world no matter if they are American or not can pay for a vote to be cast by insisting on being recognized as a “human” worthy of human rights. If this were true than a person could merely incorporate to achieve the same rights for their AI company and the human beings that are targeted for replacement can’t sue this company for training their AI machines to take the job from the human because the corporation that made the AI has a separate set of rights that exists as a collective and not just as an individual in the eyes of this CORRUPT justice system in the United States and not the LAW.  

Chief Justice Morrison Waite — Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road

But it wasn’t until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment. The case is remembered less for the decision itself—the state had improperly assessed taxes to the railroad company—than for a headnote added to it by the court reporter at the time, which quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite as saying: “The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

Chief Justice Morrison Waite 1886 statement that he simply did not want to do his job and hear any arguments on the case as to whether or not a corporation had equal rights under the law did not set a precedent that here forward all establishments of business had equal rights under the law. Chief Justice Morrison Waite decision to not hear a claim of injustice did not mean that their was no argument against an establishment of business invoking an individual right in court case that had not invoked the diversity clause. Chief Justice Morrison Waite decision was without merit and he had nothing but his opinion of the matter to rule on which were not facts.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite did not set a precedent in 1886 that determined establishments of business have equal rights under the law, he obstructed justice and perpetrated a fraud. Chief Justice Morrison Waite is a criminal whose criminal conduct should not be upheld as law but recognized by the law as a crime and anyone who would carry this case into court and argue for the continuation of the crimes of Chief Justice Morrison Waite from 1886 should be charged with obstruction.   

In later cases, this headnote would be treated as an official part of the verdict, and Waite’s conclusion reaffirmed in subsequent decisions by the Court, from an 1888 case involving a steel-mining company to the 1978 Bellotti decision, which granted corporations the right to spend unlimited funds on ballot initiatives as part of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

How great is the First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds on ballot initiatives? What HUMAN being could do without this fundamental right that again is so specific to “corporations” which are not “individuals” under any definition of the word.

The very nature of these cases shows that they are “foreign and diverse” which was the precedent that was set in 1809, that their cases are to be heard in a diversity court that is convened for this purpose and no other – IF the case has merit. But since then lawyers and corporations have unlawfully taken their claims to local, state, and federal courts without the prejudice of the diversity courts which means it is not sanctioned by the constitution of the United States and is therefore an obstruction of justice and a crime. The act of representing an establishment of business as an “individual” in a court of law is a crime in the United States called obstruction of justice, and the acts involved in the perpetuation of that crime are also crimes, such as filing motions and taking payment for the deliberate misrepresentations of facts.  

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most sweeping expansion of corporate rights yet, the Supreme Court cited Bellotti in its highly controversial 5-4 ruling that political speech by corporations is a form of free speech that is also covered under the First Amendment. In 2014’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, another 5-4 ruling by the Court granted the right of closely-held companies, which aren’t traded on the stock market, to file for exemptions to federal laws on religious grounds.

Again the establishment clause and the diversity clause were completely ignored for the benefit of the corporations, not to establish the rights of the corporations but to establish a precedent that a corporation in all legal action no matter the merits of the case on the grounds of diversity or the establishments clauses of the United States that corporations are recognized as an individual. This is a false and fraudulent statement and can be proven in court to be a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice.  

NO CASE HAS SET A PRECENDENT THAT ESTABLISHES A CORPORATION AS AN INDIVIDUAL!! ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS A CRIMINAL!  CORPORATIONS BY DEFINTION ARE GROUPS OF PEOPLE AND NOT PEOPLE. THE DIVERSTY CLAUSE AND ESTABLISMENT CLAUSE ARE THE PRECENDENT FOR CORPORATIONS TO SEEK JUSTICE.  CORPORATIONS ARE DIVERSE AND FOREIGN AND NOT PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE US.

Not everyone agrees with this expanding interpretation of corporate personhood. In his dissent in Bellotti, Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that corporations were “artificial” persons rather than “natural” persons, and that granting them the right to political expression could “pose special dangers in the political sphere.” Along similar lines, Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his dissent to Citizens United that “Corporations…are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” And soon after the ruling, then-President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.”

——

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.⁷ 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Citizens United, which protects corporate political speech, and Bluman, which authorizes restrictions on foreigners’ political participation. (https://virginialawreview.org/articles/foreign-influence-laws-the-constitutionality-of-restrictions-on-independent-expenditures-by-corporations-with-foreign-shareholders/)

While cases like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby have brought the debate over corporate personhood squarely to the forefront of American political life, they’re really just the most recent chapters in a long story. Corporations have been pushing for more and more constitutional rights since the first years of our nation’s government, and so far there’s no indication they’ll be stopping anytime soon.

CEASE AND DESIST