www.PeopleNow.org
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
“By far the most important initiative and best opportunity for reform in the world ever”
Draft
UN SDG Target 10.3.3 &Target Action Plan - TAP 14
14. Vacate as Null and Void Citizens United and Scores of Other Unconstitutional Court Rulings Without Amending the Constitution and
Repair the Damages Caused by these Rulings
(Updated October 1, 2018)
(Readers - please provide constructive comments and additional injurious, unjust court rulings to the compiler and editor of this document Ron Fisher, Fisher@PeopleNow.org)
The word corporation does not appear in the Constitution. All proposals to include corporations in the Constitution were voted down by delegates to the constitutional convention because of their concerns with the horrible abuses of British companies/corporations including the Virginia Company, whose abuses killed at least three thousand men, women and children on forced-labor tobacco plantations and attempted to monopolize American commodities.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states that only persons not corporation are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Unambiguous Constitutional provisions apply as written. If a constitutional provisional is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as written. Town of Madison v. Ford, 255 Va. 429, 498 S.E. 2d 235 (1998). The Constitution means what it says.
Nothing in the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, supports any interpretation that would give corporations rights or personhood status.
There is “standing case law, saying that corporations did not deserve the constitutional rights of
human persons--from the birth of the republic, right up through 1860 and long beyond.
All parts of court rulings or opinions and laws based on the theory of corporate constitutional rights, corporations being entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment or under the First Amendment are unconstitutional null and void or at least voidable.
The purpose of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 -three years after the Civil War, was to assure the equal protection of the law for recently freed blacks.
After the 14th Amendment was ratified, corporations, with considerable money they made from the civil war, had their lawyers begin wrongfully and unlawfully claiming that “corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment”. In particular, they wanted to pay less or no taxes same as our large corporations today.
The Supreme Court Jurists justly and wisely disagreed with the argument .
Doug Hammerstrom in his outstanding article the Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment
(www.ReclaimDemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf) states:
In 1873 when the Supreme Court heard the Slaughterhouse Cases, its first Fourteenth Amendment case, the Court rebuked the attempts of business interests to use the amendment, saying that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro.” Justice Miller added, “We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the Negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision.”
By the mid-1870s, however, the mood had turned. Reconstruction was ended in a deal cut to resolve the 1876 presidential election.
In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321 (1885), the assertion again was made that taxes violated a railroad's due process rights. The assertion was also made - for at least the third time before the Supreme Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The majority of the Supreme Court Jurists justly and wisely disagreed with these assertions again and ruled for at least the third time that corporations are not persons and no rights.
Table of Contents
14.4.1.14 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (No. 08-205) 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)
14.4.2.1District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
14.4.2.3In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010),
14.4.3Vacate as Unconstitutional, Null and Void The Following Miscellaneous Supreme Court Rulings
14.6Laws Regarding Void or Voidable Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders
14.6.2.2 Unambiguous Constitutional Provisions Apply as Written
14.6.2.3 Purposes of the Constitution
14.6.4 Void Judgments and Court Rulings
14.6.8Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges
14.6.9 Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201
14.6.10 Judicial Review of Statutes
14.6.11Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings and Laws
Attachment C: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
14.1Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 of 33
14.2Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 4 of 33
14.3 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 of 33
14.4Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 of 33
14.4.1Vacate as Unconstitutional Null and Void the Following Court Orders and Rulings That Help Establish the Very Damaging Wrongful and Unlawful Theory of Corporate Rights and Corporate Personhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 of 33
14.4.1.1 False Statement in the Headnote of the United States Report for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) (1886). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 5 of 33
14.4.1.2 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway v. Minnesota 1890, which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fourteenth Amendment due process (state legislation) rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 8 of 33
14.4.1.3Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company 1893 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fifth Amendment due process (federal legislation) rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 8 of 33
14.4.1.4 Hale v. Henkel 1906 which unconstitutionally granted corporations
Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 of 33
14.4.1.5 Armour Packing Company v. US 1908 which unconstitutionally
granted corporations Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial in a criminal case
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 of 33
14.4.1.6 Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon 1922 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fifth Amendment rights to compensation for government takings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 of 33
14.4.1.7 Fong Foo v U.S. 1962 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the
Fifth Amendment right against being tried twice for the same offense.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 of 33
14.4.1.8 Ross v. Bernhard, 1970 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case. . . . . . . . .Page 9 of 33
14.4.1.9Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) which unconstitutionally ruled certain limits on campaign spending constituted violations of the First Amendment and equated money with speech.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 of 33
14.4.1.10 Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,
1976, and Central Hudson Gas, 1980 which unconstitutionally granted
corporations the First Amendment right of "commercial free speech"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 of 33
14.4.1.11 Marshall v. Barlow's, 1978 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted regulatory searches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 11 of 33
14.4.1.12 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 1978 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the First Amendment right to spend money to influence a state referendum (endnote #1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 11 of 33
14.4.1.13 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 1986 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the First Amendment right of "negative free speech". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11 of 33
14.4.1.14 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (No. 08-205) 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11 of 33
14.4.2Vacate as Unconstitutional, Null and Void the Following Supreme Court Rulings
that Attempt to Establish Second Amendment Gun Rights
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 of 33
14.4.2.1District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 of 33
14.4.2.3In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010),
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14 of 33
14.4.3Vacate as Unconstitutional, Null and Void The Following Miscellaneous Supreme Court Rulings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 14 of 33
14.4.3.1Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which established the
unconstitutional, wrongful and unlawful theory of “separate but equal”
14.4.3.1.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14 of 33
14.5Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 of 33
14.6Laws Regarding Void or Voidable Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18 of 33
14.6.1Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18 of 33
14.6.2 Constitutionality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 of 33
14.6.2.1 The Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18 of 33
14.6.2.2 Unambiguous Constitutional Provisions Apply as Written
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 of 33
14.6.2.3 Purposes of the Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 of 33
14.6.3 Void Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 of 33
14.6.4 Void Judgments and Court Rulings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 of 33
14.6.6 Fraud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 20 of 33
14.6.7 Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 of 33
14.6.8Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges. . . . . . . . . Page 21 of 33
14.6.9 Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201. . . . . . .Page 23 of 33
14.6.10 Judicial Review of Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24 of 33
14.6.10.1 Marbury v. Madison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24 of 33
14.6.11Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings and Laws. . . . . .Page 26 of 33
14.7Background and Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 26 of 33
14.7.1Descriptions of Unjust Court Rulings Based on the Unconstitutional, Wrongful and Unlawful Theory of Corporate Constitutional Rights. . . . . . . . . . . Page 26 of 33
14.7.2 Correct the Damages Caused by Citizens United & Other Rulings and Ensure Such Rulings Do Not Happen Again. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 26 of 33
Attachment A: Why a Constitutional Amendment to Set Aside Citizens United is Neither Needed Nor Desirable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 27 of 33
Attachment A: Table 1.1, “Three Phases in the Development of Corporate Rights” from the Book Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy by Ted Nace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 29 of 33
Attachment C: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 31 of 33
Provide a plan to set aside the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and scores of other unconstitutional court rulings without amending the constitution, repudiate any notion of corporations having rights and corporate personhood, strictly limit and regulate the source, type and amount/value of all campaign contributions in particular to get all corporate funds and lobbyist out of elections and politics and direct and indirect electioneering support and correct the injustices caused by these unconstitutional, illegal, immoral rulings.
14.3.1 Implement UN SDG Target 10.3.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, by eliminating discriminatory, unconstitutional and/or injurious court orders and rulings, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard
14.3.2 Reaffirm Congress’s role “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all ... Powers ... vested by this Constitution”.
14.3.3 Repudiate and remove the fabricated, unconstitutional statement from the Headnote In the United States Report for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) (1886) which falsely states:
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14.3.4 Repudiate any notion of company/corporate rights, personhood or intelligence
14.3.5 Set aside all unconstitutional court rulings, in particular those that supposedly grant rights or personhood to company/corporations, and provide reparations/restitution for the victims of these rulings
14.3.6 Replace judges and justices the who rule that companies/corporations have rights or personhood
14.3.7 Refine/replace campaign finance laws with legislation that strictly limits the source, type and amount of all direct, indirect and in-kind campaign contributions and electioneering support and in particular removes all corporation funds and lobbyists from elections and politics.
14.3.8 Remove all Judges and Jurists for Fraud on the Court
14.4.1 Vacate as Unconstitutional Null and Void the Following Court Orders and Rulings That Help Establish the Very Damaging Wrongful and Unlawful Theory of Corporate Rights and Corporate Personhood
14.4.1.1 False Statement in the Headnote of the United States Report for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) (1886)
14.4.1.1.1 Decisions reached by the Supreme Court are provided to the legal
community with books called United States Reports. In these books each report of a case
includes a headnote in which the court reporter summarizes the opinion and outlines the main
facts and arguments. The Supreme Court has defined headnotes as "not the work of the Court,
but simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the
convenience of the profession."
14.4.1.1.2 On May 26, 1886, the court reporter, J. C. Bancroft Davis, former president of
the Newburgh and New York Railway Company and apparently at the time a member of the
Board of the Union Pacific Railroad, wrote the following as part of his headnote in the United
States Reports for the May 10,1886 Supreme Court decision for Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) (1886).
.
"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 the opinion that it does.
“
14.4.1.1.3 Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states that only persons are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14.4.1.1.4 This false entry in the headnote wrongfully and unlawfully states that the Supreme Court unanimously expressed an opinion/ruled 16 days earlier that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did persons.
This opinion was not expressed in the case nor was this issue decided on by the Court.
Even if the entire had Court ruled that corporations had the rights of persons under the Constitution, they would still not have these rights (If a judge rules that a person’s nose is a foot, the person would still have two feet and one nose). Supreme Court Justices are not infallible.
Although Chief Justice Waite and the other eight Supreme Court Jurist, knew that the statement in the headnote was false, they failed to have it corrected and in not doing so committed fraud on the Court.
Doug Hammerstrom in the Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment
states:
The corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood' status finally succeeded. Justice Stephen J. Field, a racist, [wrongfully and unlawfully] cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons in a later case,[Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith] and that [false] notion of Santa Clara’s holding has stuck.
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison compared the actual wording of the section of the law they found to be unconstitutional with the Constitution.
Justice Field, a former lawyer for railroads, used a false precedent instead of the Constitution or
any of the three precedents wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that . He committed fraud on
the court when he “cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons” and wrongfully
and unlawfully initiated the false legal theory that corporations are entitled to protection under
the Fourteenth Amendment
. Other justices, most of whom were former attorneys for
railroads, also committed fraud on the Court when they voted that corporations had rights.
Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of "separate but equal," 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case.
This is deplorable and criminal.
Historians James and Tomi Allison have conducted comprehensive scholarly legal research into the Supreme Court and corporate personhood. James has written and presented a play: The Prosecution of Judge Waite based on this research and available for download at http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pdf/JudgeWaite.pdf
The following is paraphrased from The Prosecution of Judge Waite
Morrison Remick Waite, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1874-
1888, was educated at Yale and practiced law in Ohio, much in defense of railroads and big corporations. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad This simple tax case, about fences the railroad built along its rails, had nothing to do with corporate personhood. ... Yet, almost any professor of constitutional law will tell you that THIS case was the precedent for corporate personhood and for Citizens United
In May 1886, Waite’s court heard arguments and made decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Court Reporter Davis wrote the false headnote about 14th Amendment protection for corporations.
The railroads knew how to spend their huge Civil War profits to best advantage. They rented the very best lawyers with the very best connections and they curried favor with the most important judges
It was very common for railroads to provide favors to, Chief Justice Waite, and other judges even as they adjudicated railroad cases. It was customary for railroads, early each year, to send Waite and other judges a free pass for that year. Chief Justice Waite was especially favored: When he took a long trip he often had a private Pullman car at his disposal. In January, 1886 he received at least three annual passes.
During that same period, May 1986, Waite’s son had been arranging free transportation on various steamship lines and railroads, one which was Southern Pacific, for a trip to Alaska for Waite and his daughter . During this trip, Waite and his daughter were hosted in San Francisco by Mr. Leland Stanford, President of Southern Pacific Railroad who:
• extended every courtesy possible.
• gave Waite letters addressed to his railroad employees, directing them to do all they could to make Waite and his daughter more comfortable in their travels.
• provided an excursion to Monterey for Waite and several California judges, In a private railroad car with abundant Chinese servants
• provides more railroad travel in California, this time northeast to Truckee, with luminaries of law, government, and the Mormon Church.
These were conflicts of interest at best, and graft at worst.
Similarly, today we have at least Justices Thomas and Scalia accepting bribes
from the Koch
Brothers.
14.4.1.2 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway v. Minnesota 1890, which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fourteenth Amendment due process (state legislation) rights (endnote #1)
14.4.1.3 Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company 1893 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fifth Amendment due process (federal legislation) rights (endnote #1)
14.4.1.4 Hale v. Henkel 1906 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches (endnote #1)
14.4.1.5 Armour Packing Company v. US 1908 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial in a criminal case (endnote #1)
14.4.1.6 Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon 1922 which unconstitutionally granted corporations Fifth Amendment rights to compensation for government takings (endnote #1)
Bill Moyer in the foreword to Jeffrey Clement's outstanding new book Corporations Are Not People states:
“ ... the historian Bernard Weisberger, wrote recently, the Supreme Court remained a procorporate conservative fortress for the next fifty [132] years after the Southern Pacific decision. Decade after decade it struck down laws aimed to share power with the citizenry and to promote "the general welfare." In 1895, it declared unconstitutional a measure providing for an income tax and gutted the Sherman Antitrust Act by finding a loophole for a sugar trust. In 1905, it killed a New York state law limiting working hours. In 1917, it did likewise to a prohibition against child labor. In 1923, it wiped out another law that set minimum wages for women. In 1935 and 1936, it struck down early New Deal recovery acts.”
The theory that corporations are entitled to protection under the fourteenth amendment was obtained by fraud on the court, has been used to commit fraud, is unconstitutional null and void and can be attacked in any court at any time. Any supreme court justice or judge in any court who has based his ruling or vote on Corporations having rights under the Fourteenth Amendment has committed fraud on the court.
The Justices of the Supreme Court have failed to correct this wrongful and unlawful theory and many of them have wrongfully and unlawfully used it in cases which have caused massive damage to the people, our environment, natural resources, political processes, elections and government.
14.4.1.7 Fong Foo v U.S. 1962 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the Fifth Amendment right against being tried twice for the same offense. (endnote #1)
14.4.1.8 Ross v. Bernhard, 1970 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case (endnote #1)
The following is paraphrased from Jeffrey D. Clement's outstanding book, Corporations Are
Not People. It covers Supreme Court Associate Justice Lewis Powell's Plan to Create
Corporate Rights Using Activist Supreme Court Judges
"In 1971, Lewis Powell, a shrewd, dishonest, corporate lawyer, a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature and a director of more than a dozen international corporations, including Philip Morris Inc., a global manufacturer and seller of cigarettes, wrote a confidential memorandum to the leadership of the United States Chamber of Commerce. In this memorandum Powell outlined a critique and a plan to use "activist" Supreme Court judges to create corporate rights. The roots of Citizens United lie in Powell's 1971 strategy [and in the false statement in the Headnote in the United States Report for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.]
In this confidential memo Powell, who would be nominated to the U. S. Supreme five months later, stated:
Corporations must organize and fund a drive to achieve political power through "united action." Powell emphasized the need for a sustained, multi-year corporate campaign to use an "activist-minded Supreme Court" to shape "social, economic and political change" to the advantage of corporations.
... independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.
Powell's 1971 memo to the Chamber of Commerce laid out a corporate rights and a corporate power campaign. The Chamber and the largest corporations then implemented these recommendations with zeal, piles of money, patience, and an activist Supreme Court.
Corporations and corporate executives also funded a wave of new "legal foundations" in the 1970s. These legal foundations were intended to drive into every court and public body in the land the same radical message, repeated over and over again, until the bizarre began to sound normal: corporations are persons with constitutional rights against which the laws of the people must fall.
These foundations began filing brief after brief challenging state and federal laws across the country. The foundations and the corporate lawyers argued that "corporations are persons" with the "liberty secured to all persons." They used new phrases like "corporate speech," the "rights of corporate speakers," and "the corporate character of the speaker." They demanded, as if to end an unjust silence, "the right of corporations to be heard" and "the rights of corporations to speak out."
The ideas expressed by Powell in his 1971 memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce came out of his personal involvement in the aggressive resistance of the cigarette corporations to efforts to address the devastating social and public costs of its lethal products. As a director and an executive committee member of Philip Morris, Powell shared responsibility for the fraudulent attack on the conclusions of scientists and the surgeon general by the cigarette industry and for its false insistence for years that "no proof" showed cigarettes to be unhealthy.
As counsel to the cigarette industry and as a Philip Morris director, Powell already had begun testing the use of activist-minded courts to create corporate rights. In one case in the late 1960s, Powell argued that any suggestion that cigarettes caused cancer and death was "not proved" and was "controversial." Therefore, according to Powell, the Federal Communications Commission wrongly violated the First Amendment rights of cigarette corporations by refusing to require "equal time" for the corporations to respond to any announcement that discouraged cigarette smoking as a health hazard.
Even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in the tobacco-friendly South, rejected this claim. Although Powell lost that time, he went on to win far more than he could have imagined after he got on the Supreme Court.
In January 1972 when President Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, neither Congress nor most Americans knew of Powell's radical corporatist views. The memo was not disclosed during Powell's confirmation proceedings ‘’ environment, tobacco and public health, food and drugs, financial regulation, and more.
Several vigorous dissents resisted the concept of corporate rights. The most vigorous came from the conservative Justice William Rehnquist. He grounded his dissents in the fundamental proposition that our Bill of Rights sets out the rights of human beings, and corporations are not people. For years, Rehnquist maintained this principled conservative argument, warning over and over again that corporate rights have no place in our republican form of government.
Despite the Rehnquist dissents, The millions of dollars invested in the radical corporate rights campaign began to pay off. Powell's vision of an unregulated corporate political "marketplace," where corporations are freed by activist courts from the policy judgment of the majority of people, won out.
14.4.1.9 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) which unconstitutionally ruled
certain limits on campaign spending constituted violations of the First Amendment and equated
money with speech. In Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976, the US. Supreme Court ruled, among other
things that, mandatory limits on candidates spending of their own money, limits on independent
expenditures, and limits on total campaign spending constitute violations of the First
Amendment. This ruling constitutes a central obstacle to effective campaign finance reform.
The ruling does this in two ways: First, equating money with speech, the decision prohibited
governments from imposing spending limits on candidates. Second, by acknowledging that, at
the same time, large contributions can be potentially corrupting and allowing them to be
capped, the decision created perfect condition for a black market in "soft money"--high demand
for a suppressed supply of dollars
14.4.1.10 Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 1976, and Central Hudson Gas, 1980 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the First Amendment right of "commercial free speech" (endnote #1)
14.4.1.11 Marshall v. Barlow's, 1978 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted regulatory searches (endnote #1)
14.4.1.12 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 1978 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the First Amendment right to spend money to influence a state referendum (endnote #1). Several international corporations — including Gillette, the Bank of Boston, and Digital Equipment Corporation — filed a lawsuit after the people of Massachusetts banned corporate political spending intended to influence a citizen referendum. Justice Lewis Powell cast the deciding vote and wrote the 5–4 decision wiping off the books the people's law intended to keep corporate money out of citizen ballot questions. For the first time in American history, corporations had successfully claimed "speech" rights to attack laws regulating corporate money in our elections.
With that success, an emboldened corporate rights campaign next attacked energy and environmental laws. ... utility corporations and the array of corporate legal foundations all argued that a New York law prohibiting utility corporations from promoting energy consumption violated the corporations’ rights of free speech. The corporations won again, and again Justice Powell wrote the decision for the activist Supreme Court that he had imagined in his 1971 Chamber of Commerce memo. The corporate interest in promoting energy consumption for corporate profit trumped the people’s interest in energy conservation. Over a period of six years, Justice Powell wrote four key corporate rights decisions for the Supreme Court. These unprecedented cases transformed the people’s First Amendment speech freedom into a corporate right to challenge public oversight and corporate regulation.
Powell led a majority of the Court to accept the repeated mantra that “corporations are persons” and corporate “voices” must be free, and the sustained attacks on the people’s laws continued for the next two decades. Oil, coal, and utility corporations, tobacco corporations, chemical and pharmaceutical corporations, alcohol corporations, banking and other Wall Street corporations, and many others all successfully claimed corporate speech rights to invalidate federal, state, and local laws. ... corporations even succeeded in attacking the right of parents to know whether the milk they fed their children came from cows treated with Monsanto’s genetically engineered recombinant DNA bovine drug.
14.4.1.13 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 1986 which unconstitutionally granted corporations the First Amendment right of "negative free speech" (endnote #1)
14.4.1.14 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (No. 08-205) 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
On January 21, 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, without the federal law that had limited corporate and union spending on "electioneering communication" (broadcasting) aimed at the election or defeat of a specific candidate being properly before the court, five Supreme Court Jurists wrongfully and unlawfully took it up and on their own initiative wrongfully and unlawfully held it unconstitutional.
The decisions of these five jurist wrongfully and unlawfully:
• Implicitly overturned100 years of federal law-and by further implication, state laws-limiting corporate expenditures on elections with broad language.
• Overruled two important precedents about First Amendment rights of corporations; Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [“McCain-Feingold”] that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
• Failed to distinguish between domestic and foreign owned corporations and knowingly left America vulnerable to the latter.
• Allowed unlimited corporate spending on ads for or against candidates for federal office combined with other court rulings, Super PACs and secret campaign spending. Four times as much was spent in 2010 as in the last mid-term election in 2006. Half of all this money came from secret donors, Super PACs are now being used heavily in 2012 campaigns
• Have and are causing massive damage to elections, politics, government and the reputation of and the citizen’s faith in the Supreme Court.
The five Jurist's wrongful and unlawful rationale was that the First Amendment applies to corporations (corporate personhood) and that restrictions on spending are restrictions on speech. They used false precedents rather that the Constitution to make this ruling
Corporations have never had the rights of persons. Nothing in the Constitution or the First Amendment supports any such interpretation.
Spending Money to Influence Elections is not Constitutionally Protected Free Speech. Any Supreme Court rulings that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech are null and void. The First Amendment protects "Free Speech" of the people.
The theory that corporations are entitled to protection under the fourteenth amendment was obtained by fraud on the court, has been used to commit fraud, is null and void and can be attacked in any court at any time. Any supreme court justice or judge in any court who has based his ruling or vote on Corporations having rights under the Fourteenth Amendment has committed fraud on the court.
The Justices of the Supreme Court have failed to correct this wrongful and unlawful theory and many of them have wrongfully and unlawfully used it in cases which have caused massive damage to the people, our environment, natural resources, political processes, elections and government.
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison compared the actual wording of the section of the law they found to be unconstitutional with the Constitution.
Lawyers and kssedused a false precedent instead of the Constitution. He committed fraud on the court when he “cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons” and wrongfully and unlawfully initiated the false legal theory that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, Westlaw,
http://www.answers.com/topic/santa-clara-county-v-southern-pacific-railroad. Other justices, most of whom were former attorneys for railroads, also committed fraud on the Court when they voted that corporations had rights.
ACTION: Refine and implement this Plan to Get Corporate Funds and their Lobbyists Out of Politics, Elections and the Government which is a key part of the Strategic Plan for a Peaceful Prosperous Just World.
14.4.2 Vacate as Unconstitutional, Null and Void the Following Supreme Court Rulings that Attempt to Establish Second Amendment Gun Rights
14.4.2.1 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) in which the Supreme Court of the United States, held, in a 5–4 decision:
14.4.2.1.1 “Holding (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
14.4.2.1.1.1 In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court Justices compared the actual wording of the section of the law they found to be unconstitutional with the Constitution. (see paragraphs 14.6. through 14.6.11 below)
14.4.2.1.1.2 Major misrepresentations of material facts are noted when Holding (1) is compared with the actual wording of the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
14.4.2.1.1.3 The Second Amendment states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [not the security of an individual for self-defense], the right of the people to keep [keep means to hold or maintain not “possess”] and bear [bear means to transport] Arms [Arms include weapons, guns, ordnance, artillery, etc. not just a firearm which is a pistol], shall not be infringed."
14.4.2.1.1.4 “Holding (1) states The Second Amendment protects an individual right [no it protects the duty “of a free State” to have "A well-regulated Militia”] to possess [no “to keep” - which means hold or maintain - “and bear” which means to transport] a firearm [no, “Arms” which includes weapons, guns, ordnance, artillery, etc. not just a firearm which is a pistol] unconnected [no it is connected] with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense [no, for “common defense” as ]
14.4.2.1.1.5This type comparison is what was done in Marbury v. Madison
14.4.2.2 Holding “(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self defense ) violates the Second Amendment.” T
14.4.2.2.1 A side by side comparison of this holding and the 2nd Amendment will shows that In no way does The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment
14.4.2.2.2 In the article The Right's Second Amendment Lies, Consortium News, (first published December 21, 2012), Re-Published February 16, 2018, Robert Parry stated: “Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a false notion that America's Founders adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S. government. The opposite is the truth. ...The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. Read more at: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/the-rights-second-amendment-lies-2/
14.4.2.2.3 In the article No, The Founding Fathers Didn't Give You a Right to Bear Arm - That Was a Result of Corporatism and Partisanship Posing as Jurisprudence, Feb 24, 2018, John Atcheson states: For most of US history, the first phrase in the 2nd amendment - "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was seen by courts to constrain the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" protected the States' interests in having a militia, not an individuals' right to have and carrying guns. In Heller, five right wing judges joined “in overturning some 200 years of jurisprudence. The radical shift in the interpretation of the Second Amendment by so-called conservative judges reveals how their decisions don't flow from a conservative jurisprudence grounded in judicial restraint, a belief in a textual interpretation of the Constitution, respect for precedents, and deference to democratically- elected branches of government, but rather from a desire to act in the interests of corporations and partisan conservative politics. Since the Civil War, there has been a slow, intermittent drift toward giving corporations the rights of individuals, and since 2000, if you were looking for a consistent jurisprudence, you'd be more likely to find it in the consistency in which the Court acted on behalf of corporations, vested interests, and partisan politics than you would in conservative interpretation and application of the original intent of the Constitution.” (Read more at: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/02/24/no-founding-fathers-didnt-give-you-right-bear-arms
14.4.2.2.4 District of Columbia v. Heller is unconstitutional, wrongful, unlawful, null and void. There have never been any Second Amendment gun rights. More information including outstanding dissenting opinions is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller.
14.4.2.2.5 The Heller decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
14.4.2.3 In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, there has never been a “second amendment right to possess a firearm
14.4.2.3.1 Justice Breyer dissented and wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental’.”
14.4.2.3.2 McDonald v. Chicago is unconstitutional null and void. Additional information is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago including outstanding dissenting opinions.
14.4.2.4 Heller and McDonald help made possible many single and multiple murders including school children in Newton, Connecticut, 58 people in Las Vegas, 17 teens in Parkland, etc.
14.4.3 Vacate as Unconstitutional, Null and Void The Following Miscellaneous Supreme Court Rulings:
14.4.3.1 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which established the unconstitutional, wrongful and unlawful theory of “separate but equal”
14.4.3.2 In 1890 Louisiana passed a law requiring “equal but separate” train carriages for white and black passengers. The penalty for refusing to comply was a $25 fine or up to twenty days’ imprisonment.
14.4.3.2.1 An “octoroon” (one-eighth black) named Homer Plessy sought to challenge the law: he entered a white carriage, and after refusing to leave he was evicted from the train and arrested.
14.4.3.2.2 He argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court famously denied his claim, declaring, “If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.”
14.4.3.2.3 Fifty-eight years later, the Court reversed itself and overruled Plessy. In Brown
v. Board of Education, the Court concluded that separate facilities for whites and blacks are
inherently unequal. ... the Brown Court ... took pains to avoid saying that Plessy had been
wrong from the beginning.
14.4.3.3 Plessy, obviously wrong, unconstitutional, null and void, unjust and tremendously injurious from the time it was ruled is one of the primary causes of the high unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, poverty and the high incarceration rates of African Americans today. The fact that it took 58 years to just partially rule for but not provide equal education for blacks and no action to correct its injustices is proof positive of a failure of the Supreme Court and the other two branches of our government..
14.4.4 Other Actions:
14.4.4.1 Continue to add to and refine this plan.
14.4.4.2 Lists other known injurious, unjust case law and court rulings and arrange these items by cognizant Congressional Committee/Subcommittee.
14.4.4.3 Inform and educate, Congress beginning with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the administration and the courts on these injurious, unjust items and proposed corrective actions.
14.4.4.4 Set aside the parts of the above Court Rulings which were based on corporation having constitutional rights or corporate personhood.
14.4.4.5 Repudiate any notion of corporate rights or corporate personhood
14.4.4.5.1 Other injurious, unjust court rulings and opinions based on corporations having rights or corporate personhood.
14.4.4.6 Replace the remaining four Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
14.4.4.7 Correct the injustices caused by these unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and illogical theories.
14.4.4.8 Follow up to insure these actions are accomplished.
Ted Nace’s outstanding book, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, published in 2003, provides an outstanding history of corporations, their predecessors, origination and how they evolved and gained personhood. A pdf version of Nace’s book or can be read on line, downloaded for free or a hard copy purchased at his web site http://www.gangsofamerica.com.
Portions of the following are from articles on Nace’s web site:
“Corporations are the dominant force in modern life, surpassing even church and state. The largest are richer than entire nations, and courts have given these entities more rights than people. Corporate power is out of control. According to a Business Week/Harris poll released in September 2000, 82 percent of those surveyed agreed that “business has too much power over too many aspects of our lives.”
Nace describes the origins of these powerful institution and how they got these powers The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, author Ted Nace probes the roots of corporate power, finding answers in surprising places.
A key revelation of the book is the wariness of the Founding Fathers toward corporations. That wariness was shaped by rampant abuses on the part of British corporations such as the Virginia Company, whose ill-treatment killed thousands of women and children on forced-labor tobacco plantations, and the East India Company, whose attempt to monopolize American commodities led to the merchant-led rebellion known as the Boston Tea Party.
Because of such attitudes, the word corporation does not appear once in the United States Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, all proposals to include corporations in that document were voted down by delegates. Corporate attorneys persisted in seeking legal protections for their clients by means of sympathetic court rulings, but until the Civil War such attempts largely failed.
After the Civil War, the tide quickly turned, as lobbyists secured key changes in corporate law and as corporate attorneys won a series of decisions from an increasingly pro-corporate Supreme Court. Nace recounts the key figures who engineered the “corporate bill of rights,” The book explores in depth the bizarre intrigues that resulted in the infamous “corporations are persons” ruling of 1886, and how that ruling affected the subsequent development of Supreme Court doctrine.
Nace charts the growth of corporate power through the Gilded Age, including the bloody repression of organized labor and the rise of social Darwinist thinking among American elites. He recounts how that expansion came to a halt under the New Deal, as organized labor gained legal protections, social Darwinism fell into disrepute, and Franklin Roosevelt asserted a vision of American society that placed democratic limits on corporate power. To many observers, it seemed that the corporate Frankenstein had finally been tamed by “countervailing power.”
According to Nace, that optimistic view was dashed in the final decades of the twentieth century, as Big Business mounted a remarkable comeback. The corporate political resurgence began with a 1971 memorandum written by Lewis Powell, Jr., shortly before Powell was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon. In the memorandum, Powell urged corporate America to apply its full organizational and strategic resources to politics, a course of action that proved highly successful to corporation executives and a disaster for everyday Americans
Gangs of America describes the expansion of corporate empowerment onto the global stage through international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which boosted the powers of corporations to the level of sovereign nations. The book pays special attention to recent events, including campaign finance reform, the financial scandals of 2002, and the growing movement to redefine the corporation and limit corporate power.
Despite this movement, since Nace’s book was written in 2003, the wealth and power of Corporations have increase enormously. According to Forbes.com, between 2003 and 2013, the world's 2,000 leading companies/corporations’:
• Total assets increased from $65 trillion to $159 trillion (During this same time frame the assets of the 99% have decreased by a similar amount leaving more and more in poverty, homeless and hungry)
• Aggregate sales increased from $18 trillion to $38 trillion
• Total annual profits increase from $0.492 trillion to $2.64 trillion
In Gangs of America, Nace recommends:
(1) revoke the doctrine of corporate constitutional rights;
(2) curb corporate "quasi-rights" as appropriate, e.g. requiring corporations to renew their charters every five years;
(3) ban corporations from political activity;
(4) shore up the boundaries of "non-corporate" spaces in society, e.g. prohibiting advertising aimed at children;
(5) expand the scope of worker and customer rights vis-à-vis corporations;
(6) strengthen countervailing institutions, especially unions;
(7) promote non-corporate institutions like public schools and economic forms like municipal utilities, family farms, consumer cooperatives, employee-run enterprises
All this must be done and much more including in particular a progressive property tax on the $169 trillion of net assets of the 2000 largest corporations and companies other entities.
14.6 Laws Regarding Void or Voidable Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders
All parts of a court judgment, ruling, decrees or order, and civil and military orders and instructions which are unconstitutional, violate constitutional rights, were obtained by fraud, or used or intended to be used to commit fraud are null and void or at least voidable.
Null and void portions of a court judgment, or ruling are null and void whether or not a judge has found it to be null and void, the order is appealed and/or a complaint filed. Of course,
14.6.1.1 Null: Nonexistent; void; of no legal meaning.
14.6.1.2 Null and void: That which binds no one; that which is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances; that which is of no effect.
14.6.1.3 Voidable: adj. capable of being made void, capable of being adjudged void, capable of being annulled, capable of being declared ineffectual, capable of being declared void, defeasible, liable to be annulled, revocable, subject to being revoked, or subject to cancellation.
14.6.2.1 The Constitution. "The Constitution of these United States is the
supreme law of the land"
and takes precedent over all “Laws” including the Constitution of
each state. The “Supremacy Clause”, Article VI of the U. S. Constitution includes: “This
Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” United
States Constitution, Article VI (2).
14.6.2.2 Unambiguous Constitutional Provisions Apply as Written. If
a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as
written
. The Constitution means exactly what it says.
14.6.2.3 Purposes of the Constitution. The overall purposes of the Constitution are found in its Preamble, i.e., We the People of the United States, in Order to
14.6.2.4 form a more perfect Union,
14.6.2.5 establish Justice [right and fair],
14.6.2.6 insure domestic Tranquility [calmness, serenity],
14.6.2.7 provide for the common defense [not offense],
14.6.2.8 promote the general Welfare [well being, health and happiness for all], and
14.6.2.9 secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [paragraph numbering added by the compiler]
Any law or court ruling or any part of any law or court ruling that is injurious to the Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, the common defense, the general Welfare or the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is null and void or at least voidable.
14.6.3.1 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and
name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the
decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are
bound to enforce it."
14.6.3.2 "It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law
"impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is
presumptively unconstitutional"
and therefore null and void or at least voidable.
14.6.3.3 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it
had never passed."
14.6.4 Void Judgments and Court Rulings
14.6.5 “A void judgment [is one]:
14.6.5.1 which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any
person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.
14.6.5.2 which, also, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.
14.6.5.3 that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of
jurisdiction or failure to serve process or Party in court. See also Voidable judgment.
”
14.6.5.4 “When a judgment is absolutely void, no rights are divested or obtained from
that judgment”.
14.6.5.5 “Judgments that are void may be attacked in any court at any time, directly or
collaterally.”
14.6.6 Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's 5th, 594
14.6.6.1 “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
14.6.6.2 "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to
speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot
condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of
deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be correct/ed immediately"
14.6.6.3 “Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if
it has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by a court that did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties."
14.6.6.4 Extrinsic fraud: The character of fraud which will afford a ground for setting
aside a judgment, that is, fraud which is collateral to the issues tried in the case wherein the
judgment was rendered.
14.6.6.5 Collateral fraud is the same as intrinsic fraud, which includes:
14.6.6.5.1 Fraud practiced in procuring a transaction.
For example: In the trial of an
action:—perjury, forgery, bribery of a witness, and other frauds which could have been relieved
by the court in the action itself.
14.6.6.5.2 In reference to relief from a judgment: fraudulent acts pertaining to an issue
involved in the original action, or fraudulent acts which were or could have been litigated in the
original action.”
14.6.6.5.3 For the purpose of grounds of equitable relief against a judgment, fraud which
has prevented a party from having a trial, from presenting all his case to the court or has so
affected the manner in which the judgment was taken that there has not been a fair submission
of the controversy to the court.
14.6.6.5.4 For the purpose of serving as a defense to an action on a foreign judgment, any
fraudulent conduct of the successful party in the foreign action, practiced directly and
affirmatively on the defeated parts out side the actual trial of the cases, whereby he was
prevented from presenting his side of the cause fully and fairly.
14.6.6.6 Actual fraud characterized by an evil intent to take undue advantage of another
person for the purpose of actually and knowingly defrauding him.
14.6.7.1 “It is essential to the validity of a judgment or decree that the court rendering it
shall have jurisdiction of both the subject matter and parties. But this is not all, for both of these
essentials may exist and still the judgment or decree may be void, because the character of the
judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of
procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt."
14.6.7.2 "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is
given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
constitution.”
14.6.7.3 “Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if
it has been ... entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
parties."
14.6.7.4 A court engaged in a statutory proceeding is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction; there is no presumption that the judge holds jurisdiction. Should the judge engage in any act beyond that which the law or the statute grants him or her authority, the order of the court is void, of no legal force or effect anywhere and at any time.
14.6.7.5 “Where the court, as here, is exercising special statutory powers, the measure of its authority is the statute itself; and a judgment or order in excess of the powers thereby conferred is null and void. In such a case, even though the court may have jurisdiction of the general subject matter and of the parties, an adjudication with reference thereto which is not within the powers granted to it is coram non judice."
14.6.8 Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges
14.6.8.1 Officers of the Court
All judges and all attorneys are officers of the court. Federal and state judges and attorneys are public servants paid by the government and expected to act impartially and lawfully.
A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980)
14.6.8.2 Fraud on the court
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.
... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
14.6.8.3 Effect an act of "fraud upon the court" has upon the court proceedings
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. (Source: http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm)
14.6.8.4 What Causes "Disqualification of Judges?"
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
14.6.9 Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201.
Following, directly excerpted from the US Code, shows how comprehensive and inclusive the bribery laws are. “Anything of value” includes campaign contributions, jobs, honorariums, gifts, negative advertisements. “Official acts” i.e. an act as an official, includes drafting legislation, introducing legislation, legislator’s votes in committee or on the floor, threatening to filibuster, filibustering and judges and jurists’ rulings, citations of law, providing audiences or scheduling meetings.
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 (b) (1) Whoever— directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 (b) (2) Whoever— being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
© being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
14.6.10 Judicial Review of Statutes
Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States)
Judicial review in the United States refers to the power [duty] of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or an administrative regulation for consistency with the Constitution. [The same general rules must apply to court decision, rulings, decrees,
The United States Constitution does not establish the power of judicial review. Rather, judges have granted themselves this power of judicial review
The Supreme Court's landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. As of 2010, the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional some 163 Acts of the U.S. Congress.
14.6.10.1 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803),
Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States
The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.
Chief Justice John Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions. Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.
This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States."
14.6.10.1.1 On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision, that:
“14.6.10.1.1.1 Marbury had the right to his commission
14.6.10.1.1.2 Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable.
14.6.10.1.1.3 Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by Article III of the Constitution.
14.6.10.1.1.4 The supreme court did not have the power to force Secretary of State Madison to deliver the commission because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional
14.6.10.1.1.5 Marbury’s petition to force Madison to deliver his commission was denied
14.6.10.1.1.6 Congress cannot [may not] pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.”
14.6.10.2 In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court Justices actually compared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 with Article III of the Constitution and found: “Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by Article III of the Constitution.
14.6.10.3 Since the late Nineteenth Century, Supreme Court Justices have wrongfully and
unlawfully used the false statement in the headnote in the United States Reports for the May
10,1886 Supreme Court decision for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
(118 U.S. 394) (1886)
as a precedent to falsely rule Corporations have many rights and
intelligence.
14.6.10.4 The false statement in the headnote for Santa Clara County reads:
"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 the opinion that it does.
“
14.6.10.5 Corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and the applicable parts of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution reads:
"No State shall ... deny to any person[not anycorporation] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14.6.10.6 In determining if a court ruling or statue is constitutional or not judges and justices must review the ruling or statute in light of exactly what the Constitution says and state exactly in their ruling their why each part of the Statute is constitutional. This is what was done in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Since the late 19th Century, many Supreme Court Justices and other judges have used false precedents to corruptly, wrongfully and unlawfully set aside just laws and make injurious, unconstitutional rulings such as separate but equal in hundreds of cases instead of comparing their rulings with the constitution. precedents or a false statement in a Headnote to justify a ruling of unconstitutionality. Such rulings are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable.
14.6.11 Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings and Laws
The United States Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of laws. The Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall make the laws. Congress has the duty and may and should pass laws that void Supreme Court rulings and laws that are contrary to the Constitution such as in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Primary credit for initially outlining and describing many of these items goes to Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director, Emeritus, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, www.mcli.org who compiled and edited A Tool Kit for Congress and Activists which contains succinct summaries of at least 100 laws that must be amended or repealed. The table of contents for the “Tool Kit” is provided as Attachment A. Since this “Tool Kit” was published in late 2007, at least another hundred of similar laws have been enacted in particular the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which authorizes unconstitutional detention of U. S. Citizens and others.
Credit for outlining and describing other key items and calling these laws “injurious” because of the injurious effects on human beings, democracy and the environment goes to Ms. Libby Hunter, an activist and talented musician, who also added several items.
Ron Fisher, the compiler and editor of this document, has also added other key “injurious” laws.
Since different individuals have added the same items, in many cases items are not distinguished by which person added which item
14.7.1 Descriptions of Unjust Court Rulings Based on the Unconstitutional, Wrongful and Unlawful Theory of Corporate Constitutional Rights are also outlined in Set Aside, Repeal, Replace or Amend Injurious, Unjust Laws and Court Rulings
14.7.2 Correct the Damages Caused by Citizens United & Other Rulings and Ensure Such Rulings Do Not Happen Again
__________
Bibliography
Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy by Ted Nace, 2003. A hard copy of this book can be purchased or a free PDF copy downloaded at http://www.gangsofamerica.com/read.html
Corporations Are Not People by Jeffrey D. Clements, available from http://www.powells.com
The Real History of 'Corporate Personhood': Meet the Man to Blame for Corporations Having More Rights Than You, 2012. This article is an excerpt from Jeffrey Clement's outstanding book, Corporations Are Not People. www.alternet.org/story/153345/the_real_history_of_%27corporate_personhood%27%3A_meet_the_man_to_blame_for_corporations_having_more_rights_than_you/?page=entire
The Prosecution of Judge Waite by James Allison, June 7, 2011, a new play based on scholarly legal research by Historians Jim and Tomi Allison into Supreme Court and corporate in personhood. Available for download at www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pdf/JudgeWaite.pdf
Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom, available at www.ReclaimDemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf
Nace, Ted, (2003). Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Clements, Jeffrey D. (2012). Corporations Are Not People, Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Available from http://www.powells.com
Clements, Jeffrey D. (2012). “The Real History of 'Corporate Personhood: Meet the Man to Blame for Corporations Having More Rights Than You”2012. Excerpt from Jeffrey Clement's book “Corporations Are Not People.” Available at: http://www.alternet.org/story/153345/the_real_history_of_%27corporate_personhood%27%3A_meet_the_man_to_blame_for_corporations_having_more_rights_than_you/?page=entire
Allison, James. (2012), The Prosecution of Judge Waite, June 7, 2011, a new play based on scholarly legal research by Historians Jim and Tomi Allison into Supreme Court and corporate in personhood. Available for download at http://www.thealliancefordemocracly.org/pdf/JudgeWaite.pdf
Hammerstrom, Doug. “Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment” available at www.ReclaimDemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf
DRAFT
Attachment A: Why a Constitutional Amendment to Set Aside Citizens United is Neither Needed Nor Desirable. (Revised February 8, 2013)
Thanks to all individuals and organizations working on ending the theory of corporations having rights, corporate personhood and reversing Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission. They have brought a great deal of attention to and have helped to convince the majority of people in the country to want to get corporate money out of politics and get rid of Citizens United
However, a Constitutional Amendment to do this is neither needed nor desirable because:
• The Constitution already clearly shows that only people have rights. Nothing in the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, supports any interpretation that would give corporations rights or personhood status. Unambiguous Constitutional provisions apply as written. If a constitutional provisional is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as written. Town of Madison v. Ford, 255 Va. 429, 498 S. E. 2d 235 (1998).
• A Constitutional amendment by itself would not repeal “Citizens United” and would not get any money out of the electoral process. Additional legislation would be required. Also, the amendments under consideration only address money directly from corporations. It would not include. money from the rich, money via lawyers, lobbyist and offshore or money that corporation executives simply takes from the corporation in the form of stock options or massive salaries.
• Citizens United can be set aside, finance laws overturned by Citizens United restored and corporate money gotten out of elections, by refining and implementing the Plan to Get Corporate Funds and Corporate Lobbyists Out of Elections and the Governdment Strictly Limit all Contributions to Campaigns
• If a constitutional amendment were needed, it means that the five supreme court justice can say that they were right when they ruled that corporations have rights. They are clearly wrong and this is an opportunity to get rid of all five of them.
• It is very unlikely that a constitutional amendment could ever be enacted. Many of our public servants are benefitting from it.
• The five Supreme Court Justices who voted for Citizen United are not following the Constitution now and are unlikely to follow an amendment.
• Work on a constitutional amendment is taking a significant amount of resources that could better be used working to actually get money out of elections, create jobs, end wars and occupation, stop foreclosures, reform the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive Department, etc.
At the May 22, 2012, Alliance for Justice Conference To Amend or Not Amend, two of the three speakers were against amending the Constitution. Both acknowledged the massive “damage that Citizens United” has wrought, Both have written articles opposing an amendment with numerous reasons not to amend and have outlined possible alternatives.
Kent Greenfield who teaches constitutional and corporate law at Boston College Law School wrote:
• How to Make the 'Citizens United' Decision Worse, Washington Post (January 19, 2012)
• Why Progressives Should Oppose A Constitutional Amendment to End Corporate "Personhood", Huffington Post, January 26, 2012
Mark Schmitt, an American political scientist author, and currently Director of the Fellows Program at the Roosevelt Institute, wrote: The Wrong Way to Fix Citizens United, The New Republic, January 20, 2012.
Additional supreme court rulings which created unconstitutional corporate that must be set aside include the ten listed under PHASE II: Judicial Creation of Corporate Constitutional Rights in Table 1.1 (Attachment A) of Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy by Ted Nace and the twenty or so listed or related to in this document
Attachment A: Table 1.1, “Three Phases in the Development of Corporate Rights” from the Book Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy by Ted Nace
Attachment C: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.
(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court's power to:
(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;
(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. §1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or
(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
(e) Bills and Writs Abolished. The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.
Notes
(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)
Endnotes