"Federationists must support a private right of action against actors who commit force or fraud upon the public. The last four years have made clear that the 'collective' bringing of charges is insufficient protection against these evils. The United States had a history of Citizen-convened Grand Juries. This right must be restored".

Replace administrative regulations and regulators with powers individuals (with a lawyer sometimes) can wield against the abuse.

I never thought of a grand jury, but that is a perfect addition. I would just add something that NO federal law can shield corporations (or the individuals) from the common criminal laws. My local prosecutor should be able to sue anyone or everyone at Goldman Sachs or Bank of America in a responsible position for committing acts of fraud or forgery and they should go to prison.

I should be able to bring my own tort or fraud action if I am the victim, not merged into a class action (or the class action needs reform), mandatory arbitration clauses should be nullified, as well as one-sided unconscionable provisions. I often bring up the 1914 pure food and drug act - which did a better job than the USDA, FDA, and the rest.

That would empower both individuals and citizen grand juries. If it is not a violation of the bill of rights or constitution, then federal law should never override state or local law. The megacorps don't have to do business in any particular jurisdiction. The states can change regulations and restrictions attempting to prevent fraud into criminal fraud statutes that will throw people in jail if found after the fact.

If I win, I can go to the local branch with the sheriff and clean out the cash drawers if they delay.

Big corporations should be afraid of the individuals (if they do anything wrong), not the other way around. Big lawyers can't change the facts of a crime.

Where is the "or else"? We already have the freedom of speech and assembly. We can already gather together and declare our grievances against anything. The power to impose our will on any entity is restricted by the government protection of any entity's rights.

Law enforcement is inherently an arm of the government. You cannot impose your will against any other entity without the permission of the government. Anything else is revolution against the government.

Perhaps I just don't understand this principle. Are you saying that any group or individual can bring any complaint before a court without proving that you were directly harmed by the accused?

Ed, please go look up the history of the Grand Jury.

A grand jury presents an indictment. This was always part of the Constitution - the right of the people to constitute Grand Juries and make presentments. It was usurped by the Executive and is largely responsible for citizens being unable to demand and obtain justice when the law has been broken. Prosecutorial discretion permits the ducking of any charge the prosecutor does not wish to bring.

Restoring the citizen grand jury, as originally envisioned and practiced under the Constitution, prevents this from happening and restores the rule of law.

Quote:

Perhaps I just don't understand this principle. Are you saying that any group or individual can bring any complaint before a court without proving that you were directly harmed by the accused?

A grand jury brings an indictment. Once indicted the trial must be held and a petit jury considers guilt or innocence.

Added to the 4th Amendment to clarify that entry without a warrant upon private property is unlawful and, if forcible, is an armed invasion.

I would argue that the right to property must be accompanied by a right to legal representation in all manner of property rights issues.

If a prospective plantiff and or defendant, had the ability to access public legal representation as a means of protecting their property rights, it would generate a renewed faith in the rule of law.

There is no more important role of government than that of the protection of individual property rights within the boundaries of that goverment. Second to this is the collective defense of those property rights from outside the boundaries of the government.

Just as every citizen benefits from the collective defense provided by their government, so should they benefit from the individual defense of their rights by their government.

If the emphasis of law were to be placed where it belongs, in the realm of property rights, there would be less need for the growing intrusion of regulatory law in all aspects of civil interactions. The body of case law arising from property rights would establish a consistent and clear body of law that would guide the behavoir of a society whose first principle is the ownership of self.

In our legal practices we have "corporate persons" and "biological persons". Both kinds may currently contribute to political campaigns. Under the thread topic "empowering indivuals", the power of biological persons needs to be addressed.

Unless we put power back into the hands of biological persons, by limiting corporate donations, I dont think we will progress as a nation. Having such a plank would cripple the campaign under the current political conditions, and I really at a loss to see how it could be worded to get accepted.

One of the causes of the 2008 crash was that fraud went unpunished. I assert that corporate campaign contributors so influenced the various branches of government that executive regulation and legislative oversight were corrupted and paralyzed.

Re the citizen empaneled grand jury: Even if there is a citizens grand jury that brings a bill against a bank, the judicial system need not convict -- it can just weasel out on a technicality. Witness the efforts to bring a legal complaint about the White House's presentation of Obama's birth certificate.

So there are three areas that need addressing under the "empower individuals" topic:
1. citizens' grand jury
2. campaign funding limited to biological persons
3. judicial action that upholds the letter of the laws, even against corporations

Only the first topic is addressed. For completeness, topics 2 and 3 need to be addressed.

The whole idea of incorporation in the first place is the problem. Eliminate incorporation, you eliminate the inequity between the corporation and the individual. Let those who own corporations assume their rightful share of liability for the actions of the corporation.

Well, no, the reason for corporate immunity is that you don't have control.

Responsibility without control is slavery.

One purpose of a corporation is to limit personal liability of the owners to the amount actually invested in the corporate entity. The accountability of a partnership is explicitly and intentionally denied by the act of incorporation.

Another feature of incorporation, the board of directors, is to separate control from ownership. Example - I really don't have any substantial power over IBM's board of directors because my ownership is by proxy. My shares are owned by a 403b mutual fund and the mutual fund votes with management. The fractional control I would have is diluted and masked by layers of corporations.

Management has arranged to appoint crony directors. Interlocking directorates ensure that even "independent" directors are in alliance with management's wishes. The management of a TBTF firm is in charge no matter what a substantial percentage of the beneficial owners may desire. The management/crony director alliance has the power to make donations (bribes) to politicians. This is how crony capitalism is organized.

If corporate persons keep their power in the Federationist platform, then corporate governance needs to be addressed. I suspect its simpler and more effective to restrict the political powers of corporate persons.

Yes and no.

One thing that would be effective - perhaps - is to limit political contributions to those who are actual constituents. Since a corporation cannot vote, it cannot donate.

However, there are so many ways around this I'm not sure its enforceable, and that's worse than no law or rule at all. I had a paragraph on this in the old platform when I was thinking PAC or Party, but I didn't move it on purpose.

I may still in some form, but it's tough to get right.

Genesis wrote..

it's tough to get right

I agree its tough to get right. Your attempt to limit contributions to constituents is very close to what's needed. I think you are closer to a wording to a plank than I am.

Corporate political influence is the elephant in the room. Whether or not the optimal plank is place or not, it must be mentioned or else the whole movement will be seen by those in power as ignorable.

Your limitation to actual constituents is similar to the proposed limitation on trading in a CDS to those that actually own the underlying position. Maybe there is some principle here that can be stated... and will catch on with John Q Public. Help - are there any other ideas out there?

Quote:

Well, no, the reason for corporate immunity is that you don't have control.

Responsibility without control is slavery.

If you have the power to sell you have control over how the situation affects you. And it makes doubly sure that corporations do business honestly, after all what's your stock going to be worth if you get the people who buy it in trouble?

The problem with the current situation is that it gives control without responsibility, which is no healthier than the reverse. Getting rid of the artificiality of a liability shield evens the playing field between the corp and the individual.

You're in the weeds on this one. Citizen Grand juries can indict corporations, and petit juries can find them guilty of felonies, which is an effective death penalty. The investors lose their money and the corporation goes out of business.

I don't know how much further you can realistically go.

Quote:

and petit juries can find them guilty of felonies, which is an effective death penalty

If that were true I wouldn't have a problem with the as-is, but I know for a fact that a number of times federal prosecutors have allowed companies to create shell subsidiaries for the specific purpose of pleading guilty to felonies and immunizing the parent company from the consequences of their felonious behavior. Pfizer comes to mind but they are not the only one.

Again, your "solution" is in the weeds. If you're here to bring actual debate on workable resolutions, let's have it. My time is valuable however, and some of this stuff is WAY afield of reality.

Our politicians know where their funds are coming from.

The contributions from corporations(and those associated with corporations) outweigh those of individuals. See the article.

Maybe the solution is to have a different kind of corporation, a political organization that can overpower corporate political interests.

Maybe the solution is to limit the powers of corporate persons.

Eitherway, the imbalance must be addressed.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/polit....

Quote:

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

Only the PAC and employees of the University of California, which donated more than $1.5 million, topped Goldman Sachs.

Federal law prohibits a company from directly giving money to an electoral campaign.

Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

OK let me try to put this in plainer terms.

Person A is an individual.

Person B is an individual acting through a corporation.

Presently, person B has the ability to act in the knowledge that his liability is limited to what the corporation can absorb. Person A does not have that option.

This creates two classes of citizens, one which assumes full liability for their actions and one which does not. This is inherently offensive to the principle of equal treatment under law. Equal acts, all else being equal, ought to have equal risks, or there is not equality under the law.

Why does Person "A" not have the option to form a corporation (perhaps with other persons)?

Equality of opportunity is guaranteed by the Constitution, not equality of result.

It's because it becomes something that can be used offensively where there is no equivalent defense. It enables abusive business models, e.g. Righthaven LLC, where a company can be in the business of suing individuals, have zero effective risk due to the shield, whereas their targets as individuals have full liability risk.

So there's no equal opportunity there, one side gets a liability shield - even when the sole purpose for its existence is to sue people and the other doesn't.

Righthaven appears, from the record at this point, to be a fraudulent business model. That is, they claimed rights (and a purchase relationship) they do not have.

Fraud is not shielded by corporate structures; the PERSONS involved can be held personally liable for that.

Had Righthaven actually purchased the rights it claimed to be enforcing (and which it represented it owned) then there would be the material risk of loss of the funds invested and the LLC owners would lose their investment. As it stands it appears they bought nothing and risked nothing, but represented otherwise. Eventually someone's going to tattoo this on the foreheads of the putative owners.