From his Facebook page:
In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906), the Court held:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, [see 'business license'.]
or to open his doors to an investigation,
so far as it may tend to incriminate him.
He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by [civil] due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
"By contrast and comparison, the Court went on to describe the state-created, “public” corporate citizen.
It declared in Hale v. Henkel, supra, 74-75:
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State.
It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.
It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.
Its powers are limited by law.
It can make no contract not authorized by its charter."
("No contract not authorized by its charter." - [Until you properly correct your status.])
[The creator only has jurisdiction over what it creates.]
http://ift.tt/2oPIL9B
-------------------------------------------------
But when you read the syllabus and the entire Hale v. Henkel for decision provided by the Supreme court itself we see an entirely different meaning. source: http://ift.tt/2nLzP4O
from the syllabus with my emphasis:
Under the practice in this country, the examination of witnesses by a Federal grand jury need not be preceded by a presentment or formal indictment, but the grand jury may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon examination of witnesses, to inquire whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed, and, if so, they may indict upon such evidence. In summoning witnesses, it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against them or laying a basis by a formal indictment.
The examination of a witness before a grand jury is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso to the general appropriation act of 1903 that no person shall be prosecuted on account of anything which he may testify in any proceeding under the Antitrust Law. The word should receive as wide a construction as is necessary to protect the witness in his disclosures.
The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself, and does not apply if the criminality is taken away. A witness is not excused from testifying before a grand jury under a statute which provides for immunity, because he may not be able, if subsequently indicted, to procure the evidence necessary to maintain his plea. The law takes no account of the practical difficulty which a party may have in procuring his testimony.
A witness cannot refuse to testify before a Federal grand jury in face of a Federal statute granting immunity from prosecution as to matters sworn to, because the immunity does not extend to prosecutions in a State court. In granting immunity, the only danger to be guarded against is one within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty.
The benefits of the Fifth Amendment are exclusively for a witness compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, and he cannot set them up on behalf of any other person or individual, or of a corporation of which he is an officer or employe.
A witness who cannot avail himself of the Fifth Amendment as to oral testimony, because of a statute granting him immunity from prosecution, cannot set it up as against the production of books and papers, as the same statute would equally grant him immunity in respect to matters proved thereby.
The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel the production upon a trial of documentary evidence through a subpoena duces tecum.
While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to produce its books.
--------------
So in direct opposition to freeman theory the court proclaims that the individual is distinguishable from a corporation in that he has the right to refuse to self incriminate during a federal grand jury investigation.
Further more Bobby's witless igraso that the state has authority over only the corporation since it created it and none over authority the individual it belied by the fact that the individual my be compelled to attend the grand jury and there testimony maybe required provided the witness have\y not incriminating him self."
In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906), the Court held:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, [see 'business license'.]
or to open his doors to an investigation,
so far as it may tend to incriminate him.
He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by [civil] due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
"By contrast and comparison, the Court went on to describe the state-created, “public” corporate citizen.
It declared in Hale v. Henkel, supra, 74-75:
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State.
It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.
It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.
Its powers are limited by law.
It can make no contract not authorized by its charter."
("No contract not authorized by its charter." - [Until you properly correct your status.])
[The creator only has jurisdiction over what it creates.]
http://ift.tt/2oPIL9B
-------------------------------------------------
But when you read the syllabus and the entire Hale v. Henkel for decision provided by the Supreme court itself we see an entirely different meaning. source: http://ift.tt/2nLzP4O
from the syllabus with my emphasis:
Under the practice in this country, the examination of witnesses by a Federal grand jury need not be preceded by a presentment or formal indictment, but the grand jury may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon examination of witnesses, to inquire whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed, and, if so, they may indict upon such evidence. In summoning witnesses, it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against them or laying a basis by a formal indictment.
The examination of a witness before a grand jury is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso to the general appropriation act of 1903 that no person shall be prosecuted on account of anything which he may testify in any proceeding under the Antitrust Law. The word should receive as wide a construction as is necessary to protect the witness in his disclosures.
The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself, and does not apply if the criminality is taken away. A witness is not excused from testifying before a grand jury under a statute which provides for immunity, because he may not be able, if subsequently indicted, to procure the evidence necessary to maintain his plea. The law takes no account of the practical difficulty which a party may have in procuring his testimony.
A witness cannot refuse to testify before a Federal grand jury in face of a Federal statute granting immunity from prosecution as to matters sworn to, because the immunity does not extend to prosecutions in a State court. In granting immunity, the only danger to be guarded against is one within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty.
The benefits of the Fifth Amendment are exclusively for a witness compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, and he cannot set them up on behalf of any other person or individual, or of a corporation of which he is an officer or employe.
A witness who cannot avail himself of the Fifth Amendment as to oral testimony, because of a statute granting him immunity from prosecution, cannot set it up as against the production of books and papers, as the same statute would equally grant him immunity in respect to matters proved thereby.
The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel the production upon a trial of documentary evidence through a subpoena duces tecum.
While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to produce its books.
--------------
So in direct opposition to freeman theory the court proclaims that the individual is distinguishable from a corporation in that he has the right to refuse to self incriminate during a federal grand jury investigation.
Further more Bobby's witless igraso that the state has authority over only the corporation since it created it and none over authority the individual it belied by the fact that the individual my be compelled to attend the grand jury and there testimony maybe required provided the witness have\y not incriminating him self."
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2oxpGYl
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire