A Very Harrowing Day

Today was quite the harrowing day for me.  I attended a Move to Amend workshop on the Corporate Rights and Powers Timeline in Willits given by David Cobb.  Afterwards, Al Rosen of Willits Public Access TV asked if I was willing to appear on TV to talk about the Grange/Guild conflict.  I agreed.  He wants either 3 people from the Guild side, or a panel of 3 from both (or more) sides.  Anyway, I said I would get back to him with a date.  

Meanwhile, someone overheard Al and I talking and notified Lanny Cotler, who then called me to invite me to talk.  I accepted.  Lanny also asked me if I knew about the Facebook page imitating the RV Grange FB page saying their 100-yr celebration was cancelled?  I assured him that we agreed at our meeting Thursday night not to do anything to hurt or damage anyone.  He felt assured that was consistent with my nature.  After squeezing a used swamp cooler into my Subaru and then searching all over the back roads of Willits to visit a friend who lives beyond Third Gate, I finally got to Lanny’s house.  We hugged at the door but I could see a lot of tension in his face and I could feel he had an agenda.  

We sat down and reviewed our ties.  We are not only friends, and community members, but being Jews, that makes us mispuscha, “kin."  We agreed right away that we can still love the people we disagree with.  

First Lanny started by telling me that everything I have heard from Bob McFarland is a lie.  I wasn’t too surprised since both sides are accusing the other side of lying.  After all, this is the age of Trumpian "Alternate Facts."  Lanny then began a history from 2005, including the 2009 annual CA Grange convention, and the plan to make the Grange more progressive.  Although there was a note of derision in his voice, he described the kind of political organizing plan we are currently working on to make Mendocino County elected officials more progressive.  I interrupted Lanny to mention the similar plan by local progressives, and he readily agreed it is a good plan.  So why was Lanny deriding Bob for his well-organized plan?  

Lanny went on to talk about Bob McFarland’s personal shortcomings.  He praised Ed Komsky as a “straight-shooter” but Bob as charismatic but wily.  My thoughts at that point were the pan calling the kettle black.  Also, my personal email experience with Komsky demonstrated a few personal flaws on that side also.  So one of Lanny’s major points was the personal character flaws of Bob McFarland.  

Lanny’s next point is that fraternal law presides over corporate law, and therefore, although the local chapter may hold title to the property, the bylaws of the fraternal order say that the local chapter doesn’t own the building but rather stewards it, as proven by the Vista Grange case.  Therefore, Bob is a "tragic hero" since he will fight this to the “death.”  There is no chance of winning in civil court since the court doesn’t care about the Grange.  I didn’t fully understand this point.  But he added that the Guild side is doomed because the Grange side has more money.  Of course, with the deep pockets of Monsanto behind the Grange, the fight is David against Goliath.  I have never read the CA State Grange bylaws from before the change so I don’t know.  And this is a question that the courts are still adjudicating. 

Lanny’s next point was to say that Bob McFarland only cares about taking properties, whereas the Grange only wants to support and promote local chapters.  That’s exactly what I hear Bob say about Ed Komsky and the newly formed State Grange.  Once again, both sides are accusing the other side of the same thing!  Lying and stealing!  

Lanny may have been trying to badmouth Bob to convince me to turn to the Grange side, but the more details he told me about Bob, the more admiration I gained for him.  Lanny told me that he separated from Bob in 2013 when Bob declined to support or publish Lanny’s newsletter, the Independent Grange Communications Network.  He gave me a copy dated 11/5/2013 and emailed me several more issues.  I have yet to read them.  Lanny told me his aspirations for the future of the Grange, and his words were nearly identical to what Bob says he wants for the future of the Guild.  I was astonished that both Bob and Lanny verbalized the exact same goals!  I can see how they were once partners. 

Lanny stated to me that he and I agree on about 99% of all issues, and this is the one issue upon which we differ.  I have heard the history from many others, and was astonished that hearing the tale from Lanny’s viewpoint that it was the SAME history I heard from people on the Guild side!  So what was the rub, I wondered?  

Lanny finally got to it.  The Guild is damaging the venerated reputation of the Grange. Lanny and I both agreed that the historical roots of the Grange are now topsy turvy to the current National Grange and CA State Grange, which policies have been corrupted.  But Lanny and the folks at Little Lake Grange are planning to change it from within!  Except that Lanny says he's tired and isn’t involved anymore.  I responded that Bob tried to change it from within and look what happened to him!  I added that the Grange doesn’t need the Guild to damage its reputation; it is damaging its own reputation.  

Lanny finally asked me where I stand.  I told him that as long as the National Grange had a policy in favor of industrial farming and states on their website that GMO agriculture is "necessary to feed the world,” that I would NEVER ally myself with an organization that defends Monsanto in court.  Lanny invited me to help change it from within.  I laughed. We hugged at the doorway and I assured him that we don’t have to hate each other because we disagree.  We mustn’t be enemies.  He hesitantly agreed, his eyes full of regret.

By this time, I was starving. I hadn’t eaten since 7:30am and could only think of food.  As I headed home, I came upon the exit to Redwood Valley and realized that I had been invited to the 100-year celebration.  I could probably buy food there with a check.  The first person I met was Peter Mayland, the psychologist who attempted to mediate 2 months in a row, but both times left early in frustration before I even arrived from my conflicting Red Cross meeting in Willits.  Peter asked me if Hal was hosting a synonymous celebration in the nearby park.  I told him I knew nothing about it.  That was the 2nd malicious rumor going around about the Guild side.  Peter also blamed Hal.  I agreed that Hal was not the wisest leader, but declined to mention that Hal had resigned the other day.  I cut off the discussion with this red-faced licensed psychotherapist who perpetuated false rumors, used blame as a tool, and left mediation sessions early in frustration, by saying that I was too hungry to chit chat right now.  He gave me a wide smile realizing he had been cut short. 

Unfortunately, the only thing they had at the celebration to which I wasn’t allergic was pie.  So I wrote a check for 2 pieces of pie, but remained starving.  The sight of those 2 slices of raspberry pie made my stomach growl.  I hugged a few more friends going out, and passed Jini Reynolds on the porch.  We hugged and she rushed away.  

Suddenly, as I was leaving, someone I never saw before was calling my name.  I turned around and saw a suntanned handsome man with ice blue eyes looking trim and fit calling me.  I saw his nametag said Ed Komsky.  The shade of his tan was reminiscent of the latest fad in DC, bronze.  Every time I see a TV commentator or expert appear with bronze skin, I know they are allies of Trump.  The bronze skin, fit stature, and ice blue eyes brought me back to the Nazi occupied Warsaw Ghetto of Poland and gave me shivers up and down my spine.  I smiled cordially and we shook hands.  He said, “You want to talk to me?”  I responded amazed, “I want to talk to you?”   So he smiled and said, “You want to ask me questions?”  I had no idea from where he got these notions.  I had just sat through 45 minutes of Lanny Cotler, my hands were full of pie and my stomach was hollow and grinding.  Also my son had a choral performance with the Ukiah Symphony at 8, which gave me less than an hour to eat and get there.  I assured him that I didn’t want to ask him questions, and left.  

This demonstrates the insidious creep of Monsanto's invasion into the back door of the first county in the Western Hemisphere to ban GMO agriculture back in 2004.  It’s the malicious rumor mill, and the manipulation that wins well meaning organic farmers to the Grange side.  Like Republicans, the Grange can only win with manipulation and lies.  Lanny described Bob as personally charismatic, and Bob described Ed as like a Svengali.  When I saw Ed’s charming smile, handsome physique, and the alluring blue of his eyes contrasted against his bronze skin, I knew what Bob was talking about.  It is through charismatic leaders that lies are generated and perpetuated.  Monsanto has entered Mendocino County through a back door in the name of the venerated Grange, and is charming organic farmers into supporting with their paid dues what is contrary to their own interests. 

What can we do about bad laws?

Photo of British suffragette Ada Wright being beaten for breaking the voting law

This is what happens when you break the law. She's lucky they didn't shoot her! They might have if she were Black in the USA.

In 1492, it became illegal in Spain to practice Judaism. Let's say a Spanish family secretly lit candles Friday night to keep the Sabbath holy, then went to church Sunday morning, removing their hat in the Christian style of respect, and genuflecting with holy water at the sanctuary door. Then Monday at school, their child accidentally mentions the Sabbath candles, this picture might be that child's mother after the teacher had informed the police of a known family that breaks the law.

What do citizens do about bad laws? There is a list of bad laws too long to mention here. At Move to Amend, they try to convince corrupt members of Congress to amend the Constitution to state that Rights are for natural persons only. They think that a groundswell of public sentiment might sway the Congress. At Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, they say we should write local laws that directly violate the bad laws, and take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to achieve justice in the law. Mahatma Gandhi advocated non-violent direct action even risking death at the hand of those enforcing the bad law. He even advocated home rule in his 1910 book, "Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule." by M.K. Gandhi 1910

How do we achieve justice in the law? Should we include illegal provisions in our new Mendocino County charter like banning the constitutional protection of rights to fictional persons? This is like the "Emperor with No Clothes." It is obvious to everyone that the Bill of Rights was aimed at humans. Yet everyone is somehow willing to accept that under a quirk of the law, that aggregates of money charted by a state to do business have equal protection under the law as human beings or citizens.

I wonder if we include something that contradicts currently established laws, i.e. that fictional persons have rights protected by the Constitution, that even if the voters approve the charter at the polls, would the Secretary of State even ratify a charter with provisions directly contradictory to known law? We should call him and ask.

I wonder if the police would beat up a corporation like this if the corporation tried to vote?

A Wall of Separation Between Corporation and State

The Tea Party advocates told me that the Constitution protects capitalism.  That perplexed me.  I have read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights several times and couldn't recall seeing anything about capitalism.  As a matter of fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution with me like a Christian will carry a Bible.  I can't say that I am a great Constitutional scholar, but I have a pretty good familiarity with it.  

I contended that I never saw anything about capitalism.  The closest thing I could imagine is the right to own private property.  They responded that this right IS capitalism, but the founding fathers just didn't have that word yet.  I again contended that capitalism means buying low and selling high, which is not at all the same as the right to own private property.  They disagreed, and affirmed that it is the same.  

So I looked up the word Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision for profit, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. 

The first real capitalists were the Dutch East India Company founded 1602.  They used capital for investment, but no one ever used the word Capitalism until it was coined in 1867 by Karl Marx in his book co-written with Engels, Das Capital.  The meaning Marx gave it was using capital (money) to buy commodities to sell for profit.  That seems pretty simple to me and confirmed my contention that capitalism is not the same as the right to own property.  There is no right in the Constitution to own property for profit.  Although the founding fathers assumed that shops and businesses would conduct commerce everywhere in the new Republic, they found no reason to guarantee the right to free enterprise or the right to make profits. 

That's why I believe we need to amend the Constitution to guarantee Constitutional rights only to human persons, as well as making election financing answerable only to the Public for which they will be elected.  These together will make a wall of Separation between Corporation and State. 

The Udall "Democracy for All" amendment is a Red Herring

The "Democracy for All" (Udall) amendment is a Red Herring and I am surprised that Bernie Sanders is said to be promoting it. Even Bernie's "Saving American Democracy" Amendment proposal is far superior to this tiny bone. It fails to bar corporations or other artificial entities from having rights protected under the Constitution. And it returns us to a century of failed campaign regulation.  It uses the word "may" instead of "shall." 

In other words, this amendment proposal is getting LOTS of press because it fails to mandate a ban on corporate personhood rights while promoting the false hope that regulatory boards protect people over industry profits. Unfortunately, is is too often the opposite. 

Free Speech for People apologizes about supporting this bill saying that they are also promoting a separate bill to ban corporate rights.  Unfortunately, that bill has no momentum. 

I recommend when our California Senators debate the Udall bill this coming month, that they bring up the following issues:

1) The campaign finance regulations in Arizona will be VERY different than those in Vermont. 

2) Do regulations really work?  Industry insiders tend to be the "experts" staffing regulatory boards and they habitually regulate loopholes in favor of their industry rather than protect the People. 

3) Ultimately, as long as large donations can buy politicians, Democracy is an impossible sham.  When campaigns will be publicly financed and limited to just a couple of months with private money prohibited, then public servants will bend in favor of those that pay for their campaigns, the public.  This will hopefully be the next constitutional amendment to get all big money out of politics once and for all! 

4) Regulations didn't work for most of the 20th century, what makes you think an amendment will make failed regulations any better?  Do we have to wait for another century of failed regulations before elections are publicly financed?

5) The root cause of this perversity of Democracy is the implication by the Supreme Court in 1886 that fictional persons get the due process of law promised to "all persons" in the 14th Amendment.  Any amendment proposal that doesn't pluck out the root by clarifying the status of fictional persons under the Constitution will ultimately miss the mark.  The Udall Amendment bypasses this question by saying that artificial entities "may" be distinguished from natural persons...  Its failure to clearly mandate that the protection of constitutional rights are for natural persons only makes it a waste of political capital. 

What to do when you feel like giving up

A friend asked: "When humans keep proving themselves stupid and greedy and justice is nostalgia what do you do? Seriously, don't you ever feel like giving up? And if so, what do you do?"

Reply:

The corporate interests are happy to exhaust you.  You are looking at the half empty cup with a hole in the middle that can never seem to fill up.  That's why you are exhausted.  Please, sister M, look at the cup half full.  We will fix the hole in the middle if we all work together. 

The public is generally disgusted with the Republican extremists, but they are likely to forget very soon, likely before the next congressional election.  One of our jobs is to keep the public apprised of the extremist BS so they don't forget.  I'm reading “Brave New World” right now.  The public can all just take some Soma and sleep with propaganda quietly playing in their dreams. 

What keeps me energized is my love for humanity and my strong sense of justice.  I assume it is the same for you.  I am repeatedly shocked at how corporations and governments can wantonly and brazenly break all the laws, and no one takes them to task for it.  For example, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is still a law on the books, but no one enforces it anymore, and so we have "too big to fail."  Another example, the MERS database records real estate transactions electronically, but the County Recorders never receive the recording fees.  Yet, I can't find a single law that legally shifts the mandate to record RE transactions away from the County Recorder.  MERS just took the liberty, and county recorders just let it happen.  I guess they were just complying with an order from above. 

The Constitution talks about several different types of persons.  It talks about We the People, citizens, people, and persons.  The Court has clarified that of these 4, corporations are legal persons but not included in We the People, citizens or people. 

To me, one way to fix the hole in the middle of the cup is to take constitutional rights away from corporations.  In addition, all elections should be publicly funded and limited time, i.e. 6 weeks of campaigning, and corporations should be barred from campaign donations the way it used to be.  What changed is that corporations have patiently spent a century eking out human rights under the Constitution, every one granted by the Supreme Court.  The first human right they won was Due Process of Law in 1886.  The corporate lawyers argued that since everyone knows that corporations are “fictional persons” under the law, then the Constitution says in both the 5^th and the 14^th Amendments that every person has the right to due process of law.  So aren’t fictional persons also persons? the corporate lawyers argued.  And so a non-living aggregate of capital designed to maximize profits achieved their first human right. 

Over the years, corporations have been granted more and more human rights.  You can get a PDF timeline corporate rights here: http://movetoamend.org/timeline-personhood-rights-and-powers.  Interestingly, the corporate Right to Privacy was struck down by the Supreme Court because they distinguished between “person” and “personal.”  The Court reasoned that personal privacy was something only a human could have, but fictional persons were undoubtedly “persons.”  So now, although corporations have the Rights to Free Speech, to Right to be Indicted by a Grand Jury for crimes, not twice in jeopardy for the same crime, nor witness against itself, the Right to Speedy trials, Jury Trials, nor be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property, Equal Protection of the Laws, but NOT the Right to Privacy.  Pretty soon a corporate person is going to run for office! 

What we need to do is create a groundswell of public sentiment in favor of a constitutional amendment that makes it clear that only NATURAL PERSONS have Rights under the Constitution, and that money is NOT Free Speech.  Such an amendment will cut the root of corporate abuse.  Next (or simultaneously) we need another amendment that makes all elections to public office be publicly funded and limited to 6 weeks; and bar outside funding and partisan election commissions or partisan electronic voting machines. 

Right now, Move to Amend is doing a canvassing campaign called We the People Listen, in which we are going door to door in our neighborhoods and asking people what their biggest issues are and if they have noticed corporations impacting their lives?  We are asking rather than telling.  I’m excited to do this.  This is how we create coalitions in our neighborhoods.  This is how we create the groundswell of sentiment and keep people awake.  Http://movetoamend.org/listen

Corporations have more constitutional rights than humans

We have reached a point in history in which aggregates of capital (corporations) now have the inalienable human rights described in the Bill of Rights, i.e., Free Speech, petition the government for redress of grievances, unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of law, and a speedy trial. These "Rights" have all been granted not by Congress, which makes laws, but by the Supreme Court, which refines laws made by Congress.

In the wake of the Civil War, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment defined who can be a citizen. The 14th Amendment then goes on to state that "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...." Clever corporate railroad lawyers decided to exploit the 14th Amendment in order to increase corporate power and wealth. Corporations have been considered "fictional persons" since English Common Law was codified in the 12th century. The legal fictional of corporate personhood facilitated their being taxed by government and sued in court.

In 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the court affirmed the right of a corporation to get due process of law under the 14th Amendment. Although it may be clear to you or me that the 14th Amendment was intended for freed slaves, the fact is that the term "person" was not defined. It didn't say "black persons" or "natural persons" or "fictional persons;" it just said "person." So corporate lawyers argued that corporate persons are to be included, and the Supreme Court let it happen. Now, more than a century of legal precedents have been built on that fateful case.

The State of Vermont passed a law requiring that all Vermont dairy products be labeled if they contain Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a product manufactured by Monsanto. In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down that Vermont law in International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy (the VT attorney general). The Court ruled that the right to Free Speech also implies the right NOT TO SPEAK! And so the Supreme Court awarded an international dairy food association more rights under the U.S. Constitution than the citizens of Vermont!

Right now, several states are running campaigns to label GMO's in food (more Monsanto products). Yet, based on the 1996 SCOTUS precedent, corporate persons have the right NOT TO SPEAK; therefore, no GMO labeling law will survive judicial review as long as corporations have constitutional rights.

Members of Congress have been bought and paid for by corporations due to our current system of privately financed election campaigns. The amount of money spent on election campaigns is obscene. Therefore, we can't expect Congress to correct this error. Anyway, Congress can't overrule the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court CAN overrule Congress! The way to correct this 127 year old misappropriation of justice is with a constitutional amendment driven by We the People.

A dozen or more amendments have been proposed in Congress to correct what is often framed as "the damage done by Citizen's United." The system was broken long before the 2010 Citizen's United decision, so this framing of the problem is a distraction from the real issue. Overturning Citizen's United will only return us to an era of inadequate campaign finance regulations. Regulations don't work because the regulatory boards are always staffed with industry insiders who weaken regulations in favor of corporate profits over the health and well being of the People.

H.J.Res 29, the amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Nolan of Minnesota, is the only proposal that eliminates ALL corporate personhood rights under the Constitution.  It is the first and most fundamental step in erecting a Wall of Separation Between Corporation and State. 

In order to rescue democracy in the USA, please demand that your Representative in Congress co-sponsor H.J. Res. 29, the We the People Amendment. Move to Amend

We can solve the issue non-violently with a constitutional amendment

The new fire in the growth of Liberty and Democracy initiated by the Arab Spring and OWS has accelerated the process of our sovereign People taking back control of our government from the corporate oligarchy. We will non-violently take back our government from within the system set up by our Founding Fathers by amending the Constitution.

The Supreme Court never actually ruled in their Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad 1887 that corporations are persons under the Constitution. The justices actually REFUSED to rule on that issue in this decision. Yet, the court reporter, a schill for the railroad barons, wrote it into his headnote, and as such, a century of court decisions have been based on this false precedent.  This is a 115 year-old corporate farce! 

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political money is speech and is protected under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court made their worst decision to date, even worse than the Dred Scott decision. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court legislated from the bench that if corporations are persons under the Constitution (1887), and money is speech (1976), then corporations and trade unions have the right to free speech under the First Amendment and can spend unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to influence elections. This decision overturned a century of campaign finance reform, and was certainly the most anti-democratic decision in history. 

The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for international corporations to buy our elections. It drove the final nail into the coffin of Democracy, which is now dead. We no longer live in a Republic with government by the People. Our elected representatives are beholding to the special interests that financed their election campaigns, and not to the electorate. The whole system is seriously, seriously flawed. 

We need to take our government back. The Declaration of Independence 1776 says, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Short of an armed revolution, many people have concluded that we may be able to solve the issue non-violently with a constitutional amendment. A sudden rash of amendments have been proposed to Congress in both Houses. Most of them concern campaign finance reform. A couple of the proposed amendments go right to the crux of the issue. They propose that only human beings are persons under the law, and money is not speech.