There has been much said about the recent five vote Supreme Court decision equating corporations with persons - including accusing the Five Supremes who voted in favor of this decision of treason.
The Constitution sets explicitly high and narrow standards for this crime, noticeably different from English statute and common law. However, for evidence, the Constitution only requires two witnesses.
Here, a group of Veterans comes to that conclusion.
I will second that accusation without hesitation or question, submitting my own experience and well developed case as evidence., and I'm quite sure I am not the only one. For instance, in addition to the above Veteran internet link, my local paper had a letter to the editor published making exactly that claim (their online policy limits editorial page letters).
A crucial point here is the 'court' of jurisdiction. Will any State court take up this matter? Will the legislative and executive branches take up same or will they join in the conspiracy? This is a crucial point, and a test for both of these branches of our system of government - either hold the trial or stand with them as any two citizens of the United States seek their constitutionally guaranteed right to petition for recourse.
One point to be made along this line of reason is that the Bar (an interesting 'corporation' itself) is not qualified to administer the law, given their 'activism', right and left, around the its founding principles.
The specific standards are clear, "Treason...
shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The critical point here is making the determination that corporations are enemies of the people of the United States. ('Levying' corporate 'war' has not yet occurred yet, to the best of my knowledge. However we are getting closer and closer to that happening. - Make my day Blackwater scum.)
This is a relatively simple task, merely show a pattern of court supported corporate violations of other Constitutional rights. Adding a financial benefit criteria would be okay - defining corporate treason as the extortion of individuals to deny them their rights for the financial benefit of the fictional 'person'.
Respect for the intent of caution in making these allegations from the original drafters merits mention. Corporations do have a use, FWIW though they may well be inherently quasi socialist organizations and **NOT** members of the private sector at all. This is a subject for more discussion.
Note that the Constitution explicitly limits a finding of treason to not include "corruption of blood", referring to punishing the descendants of any perpetrator and limits property 'forfeiture' to the life of the convicted - allowing heirs to inheirit.
Please note though that this does not prevent additional legal actions addressing this factor, again, with caution. For one, I'd argue that any accredited legal professional who openly violates the constitution is, by definition, a power mad genetic defect - as, by their documented intelligence and choice to abuse others via the misuse of same.
As to caution, I'd limit the 'punishment' on the descendants for this ancilliary crime to the 'clawing back' of all financial benefits provided to the child or relative gained by illicit means. I, personally, would also argue for 'claw back' provisions for all those receiving substantial payments from said convicted corporation for services which in any way supported the acts of Treason.
Forfeiture of assets until death is a great way to immediately freeze assets, and hold them in trust until the death of the individual found guilty.Such a 'trust' or 'estate' could certainly be sued for any damages resulting from the criminal actions of the individual in question.
A crucial question here is the relationship of responsible individuals within the corporate framework. This needs more work, but I'd put that authority and responsibility in direct correlation with the authority of the individual at hand. The CEO loses everything, including citizenship, executive ranks might well keep their citizenship, middle management only a forced bankruptcy, and, for the lowest supervisory and professional ranks, termination, for cause from the corporation (whose assets are now under control of the US or State Government). Of course all legal professionals should never work in the law again, and lead counsel - in and out of house, should share the full punishment of the President, CEO, and Corporate Board.
Stripping citizenship would be an ironic form of justice for a larger treasonous 'regime' who delighted in denying Geneva rights to military combatants through engaging in torture, etc.
Going one step further I do think it is time to scientifically address the question of genetic defects as called 'corruption of blood' as a separate deliberative matter from any treason proceeding.
All this may seem complex, but I think it really comes down to one simple question/criteria:
Is your government in conspiracy with a corporation threatening your life or shortening it in any form, or, do you know anyone to whom it is?
If you are reading this you know at least one individual who will die earlier than he otherwise should have, due legal and corporate malfeasance over a period of 25 years. The appropriate legal standard here is 'self defense' by a 'reasonable' standard of judgment, irregardless of the presence of any court - though, albeit, it would be wise to have an advance finding of reasonableness. Please note that individuals forced to act in such a manner against the ultimately responsible individuals are NOT limited by any restrictions on 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Again, with caution, I would set this standard similar to that of the military concentration camp officers of the Third Reich. Those folks have no rights as citizens of any country, nor do they have any status even as human beings, they are merely miserable beasts to be wiped from the face of the earth. Allowing the victims to execute the punishment has high risks, but these risks can be monitored, and it is certainly more expeditious and cost effective than a bureaucratic government and its courts who refuse to do their JOB.
Of course, suicide of responsible individuals prior to a court case might well protect at least some assets for descendants. I'd personally argue for prohibiting claw back against relatives in such cases, where the suicide includes a voluntary forfeiture.
I would argue that there is probable cause to investigate every national corporation who maintains a lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. for these crimes. I would also suggest that the Blackwater corporation, forgiven for war crimes by US Courts, is a legal equivalent of the Concentration Camp divisions of the German Military.
Like I said, Blackwater folks, make my day, scum. You may well believe you are righteous honorable Americans but you are in fact nothing more than splattered bugs on the dashboard of human history.
