Recent Trends in Corporate Personhood and the Overexpansion of Corporate Rights

[Speaker to Animals]

Sorry for going back to page one.

People have Rights, corporations should not.

I disagree with this, corporations should have rights, they should just be very limited. A corporation should have the freedom of speech just like a human, but it shouldn't include political donations, which isn't speech/expression to begin with. If you take away freedom of speech from corporations, then suddenly the government can censor what a corporation says. This means press that isn't an individual working on their own can be censored. Even then individuals would have issues as most of the ways they communicate with the public is through corporation owned mediums that would then be able to be censored. It is just as important for a corporation to have freedom of speech as it is a human. This is true for basically every single right in the bill of rights. It is important for corporations to have rights because those corporations having rights protects the rights of individuals. If Google didn't have the right to privacy then all of the data they collected about you would be free for the government to confiscate without a warrant.

I can only think of two rights that corporations shouldn't have the right to donate to political candidates, and the right to discriminate. I think those rights are forfeit when you gain government protection.

Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

[Martin Hash]

Just for your interest, my legal specialty is exploiting the "personhood" of LLCs. I'm pretty good at it, and as businesses get more Rights, I'll be fucking you prole's shit up even more. I think it's counterproductive to the nation but you use the tools you're given or you lose.

[Calculus Man]

Just for your interest, my legal specialty is exploiting the "personhood" of LLCs. I'm pretty good at it, and as businesses get more Rights, I'll be fucking you prole's shit up even more. I think it's counterproductive to the nation but you use the tools you're given or you lose.

I'm intrigued. Care to elaborate? Or are we passing into the realm of "trade secrets"?

[Martin Hash]

Confidentiality.

However, I can say that my technique was investigated by the Washington State AG's Office and they chose not to pursue (because it isn't illegal). It involves "personhood," and offshore veiling.

[Fife]

If confidentiality applies, it looks like you've just breached it.

Just kidding, I know there is absolutely zero chance you were serious about confidentiality applying to any process you are describing.

[Martin Hash]

WTF?! Do you publicly discuss the details of what you do for your clients?!

[Fife]

CLE. Every been to one?

I'm just fucking with you, dude.

This stuff is not as secret as you are pretending. It's not like we are hiding Putin's assets he uses to prop up his USA proxy government.

[Martin Hash]

It almost entirely relies on secrecy. If opposing council knew exactly how it worked, they could add that into their billing, but if they have to guess, it's easier to walk away.

p.s. In fact, another license renewal is coming up, so it's CLE time again.

[Fife]

If it is not "litigation tested," and thereby previously subjected to every invasive body-cavity discovery-tactic and motion-practice exploration imaginable, is it really a good product for clients?

[Martin Hash]

No, I won't set anybody else up, but it was fun & challenging when I was developing it.