The Protocols of Satan, Part 33: Corporations are People Too?

  • Christogenea Saturdays
 
00:00

 

The Protocols of Satan, Part 33: Corporations are People Too?

In Part 21 of these Protocols of Satan, which was titled Hitler and Nietzsche, while discussing Protocol No. 2 we encountered the strategy of our conquerors to enrapture the masses in amusements, and with the hope of new amusements, of which they said: “Let that play the most important part for them which we have induced them to regard as the laws of science (theory). For this purpose, by means of our press, we increase their blind faith in these laws. Intelligent GOYS will boast of their knowledge, and verifying it logically they will put into practice all scientific information compiled by our agents for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction which we require.”

Now in our last segment of this series, in Part 32, The Appointed Priesthood, we encountered the boast that “The GOYS are no longer accustomed to think without our scientific advice”, and we endeavored to convey the idea that the so-called scientific community, which itself is sustained by governments and corporations, has indeed become a new priesthood over the people. Through the continuing announcement of new findings from so-called scientific studies, through the media they succeed in regulating the general outlook on life which is held by the masses, and not only influencing but practically dictating their morality by controlling their views of creation and existence.

To a great degree, throughout these Protocols of Satan and our earlier series, The Jews in Medieval Europe, we have indeed discussed the connections between the Jews and the Kaballah, the rise of science in the late Middle Ages, modern Freemasonry, and the first scientific institutions. But the attempt to elevate the reason of man over the principle of God is nearly as old as man has been on the earth. Perhaps the King James translators were technically incorrect to translate γνῶσις as science in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy. But then again, as speculative masonry – which was the forerunner to Freemasonry – was taking root in England around that same time, perhaps they knew exactly what they were doing where their Bible has Paul of Tarsus warning “Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

Now that the supposedly Christian churches have accepted the claims of “science”, they openly operate in direct contradiction to the Word of God in Scripture. First, many churches stopped condemning Sodomy, and then they began promoting Sodomites into official capacities. Now, in Sweden at least, the gender of God has been revoked. The Guardian, a British newspaper, has reported that “The Church of Sweden is urging its clergy to use gender-neutral language when referring to the supreme deity, refraining from using terms such as ‘Lord’ and ‘he’ in favour of the less specific ‘God.’” The article repeated statements by the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden, that “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human”. Of course, this is a complete denial of Yahshua (Jesus) Christ. But it also must be said that the Archbishop is also a woman, so the fundamental problems with the Church of Sweden are deeply rooted.

The problems in such churches parallel the general problems with society, as it has suffered from trends which reflect an agenda that has been incrementally advanced for many hundreds of years. That agenda is, of course, outlined in the Protocols. As the agenda comes closer and closer to be implemented fully, the speed at which it advances naturally increases as it inevitably gains momentum. At first, traditional gender roles were attacked and deconstructed, and now, as the princes of this world seek to recreate Sodom and Gomorrah on a global scale, gender itself is being entirely deconstructed – starting with God. All of this, in the name of “science”, is of course in complete contradiction to Christ. However the Archbishop obviously did not consider the gender of Christ in relation to the gender of God, which must have very much pleased her Jewish masters.

Of course, the scientific dictatorship which serves as the dominant priesthood of this new society affects the consciences of the masses in many other ways, but in recent days the advancement of the program to deconstruct gender and all sexual morality is the most visible. But it has only slightly overshadowed the program for the normalization of pedophilia which has been slowly gaining momentum for some decades. In subtle ways, however, the one program has been employed to assist the other. Soon the Church of Sweden will be advocating sex with children, if it has not done so already. Then both Jews and their friends the Muslims will be equally pleased.

So we left off this series on the Protocols with Part 32, The Appointed Priesthood, where we had presented an article by Jon Rappoport titled A totalitarian society has totalitarian science, and while the central theme of that article was the debate over the issue of vaccination, the patterns which it illustrates are applicable in other areas as well. For instance, Rappoport described how the governments of the world accepted the conclusions of scientists who are in favor of vaccinations, and ignored or purposely marginalized many scientists who are against vaccinations. Then these governments mandate compulsory vaccinations while citing claims of risk which are in direct contradiction to the theory of vaccination itself, compelling those who would choose not to be vaccinated. So in spite of all logic, the agenda of universal and compulsory vaccination progresses, and false science and world governments advance the agenda in harmony. The same agenda is evident in the area of climate change.

The exact same process was evident when the princes of this world sought to deconstruct the concepts of race and culture after the so-called Civil Rights movement of the last century. The media, the government, the schools and the churches all acted as a harmonious chorus singing the same songs at the very same time, and new terms like multiculturalism and diversity represented the new doctrines which were handed down to the people by the scientific priesthood. The obvious inequality of the races did not matter, and opposing opinions were demonized by the media. In this same manner, scientists opposed to vaccination are generally perceived as quacks, and when they are not completely ignored they are often ridiculed in the media.

But who controls the media? We have already demonstrated here at length, in Parts 11 through 13 of this series, that Jews have controlled the media in the West for many decades. Then we said in Part 14 that “For two-and-a-half segments of this series presenting the Protocols of Satan, we took a long digression to discuss Jewish control of the newspapers and glossy magazines of Europe and America from the mid-19th century and until the time of the Second World War. Excluding actual books, newspapers and magazines were of course the only media until the 1920’s and even with the advent of radio and television, they remained the most influential form of media until long after both the World Wars were concluded. But just as importantly as their control of most of the major newspapers was the Jewish control of most of the advertising and all of the major international news agencies throughout that same period. With that, they were able to control even those newspapers which they did not own or for which they did not hold positions as editors or writers.”

The media is the mouthpiece for the scientific priesthood. While many scientific studies are published in professional scientific journals, the media decides which of those scientific studies is presented in a manner that can be digested by the general public, and now nearly all of the world’s media is not only in Jewish hands, but it is even further consolidated under a small number of Jewish-controlled corporations.

Closing Part 32 of this series, we left off where the Protocols state, from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:

Protocol No. 3 continued:

The GOYS are no longer accustomed to think without our scientific advice. Consequently, they do not see the imperative need of upholding that which we will sustain by all means when our kingdom is established, namely, the teaching in the schools of the only true science, the first of all sciences — the science of the construction of human life, of social existence, which requires the division of labor and, consequently, the separation of people into classes and castes. It is necessary that all should know that equality cannot exist, owing to the different nature of various kinds of work; that there cannot be the same responsibility before the law in the case of an individual who by his actions compromises an entire caste and another who does not affect anything but his own honor.

So we discussed the authority of the scientific priesthood, and illustrated it with the article on science and totalitarian society by Mr. Rappoport. Then we discussed the boast concerning scientific social control by presenting an article titled Liberalism and Social Control, The 'New Class’ Will to Power, which was written by Kevin A. Carson. Commenting on Carson’s article we then said, in part:

Note that in his penultimate paragraph of his article, after illustrating the hypocrisy of Leftist “New Class” progressivism, Kevin Carson stated in reference to the so-called “New Right” that it was not the proper solution to the progressive Left, because it “carefully conceal[s] the fact that the greatest criminals are in the corporate boardrooms and the national security state, and the biggest parasites and deadbeats are the heavily subsidized, privileged corporations….” This false dichotomy of Left and Right certainly does cover for the crimes of its masters…

Following that, we repeated the portion of Protocol No. 3 which we have just cited, that boasts that “there cannot be the same responsibility before the law in the case of an individual who by his actions compromises an entire caste and another who does not affect anything but his own honor.” What this is saying, essentially, is that the people who direct capital are in control of the destinies of those whom their capital affects, and that therefore those people should be above the law.

One of the principle charges of Liberalism against the absolute monarchies of Europe was that the nobility was often above the law, themselves being the enforcers of law. For that purpose Jefferson had written that “all men are created equal”, asserting that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law. Of course, Jefferson was not alone. The same sentiments were commonly held by supposedly learned men throughout the West. They were expressed to a greater degree than Jefferson in a 1795 poem from the Scotsman Robert Burns which is commonly titled A Man's A Man For All That, but by its first line, Is There for Honest Poverty. But the Jews who produced the Protocols had boasted in Protocol No. 1 that “In our day the power of gold has replaced liberal rulers”, and now here they assert that “an individual who by his actions compromises an entire caste” should be above the law. Burns lamented the coward slave, but the liberalism of Burns and of Jefferson have made all men into slaves of the devil.

In order to discover who it is that has come to rule the world by the power of gold, one must discover who it is that is above the law. In relation to this, we first said that “the Robber Barons of the 19th century were never held accountable for the innumerable crimes they committed, or that were committed by their agents on their behalf, and for the trail of misery they left behind while blazing their paths to the monopoly of industry under a handful of large banks and corporations.” We then began to explain the injustice of giving corporations the rights of persons, and how they perpetuate even greater injustices through their ability to hire practically innumerable armies of lawyers to obfuscate legal principles relieving them of liability for their crimes. Then we concluded that when we resumed with our presentation, we would “begin with this statement of the Protocols and demonstrate this very fact, even from recently published legal essays. These aspects of the Protocols of Satan has been fulfilled in every way, and most of us are absolutely oblivious to our oppression.” That is where we now stand.

First, we need some background on the development of corporations. From The Finance Professional’s Post, and an article titled Early Corporate America: The Largest Industries and Companies before 1860, we have the following:

Although the United States drew on European precedents to guide much of its early financial maturation, in one area it led the way: the development of the corporation as an important form of competitive business enterprise. Early European corporations were few, far between, and usually monopolies. Examples include the Bank of England, which had a monopoly of corporate banking in England and Wales into the 1850s, and the East India Company, which enjoyed a monopoly of British trade with India until well into the 19th century.

When Britain began in 1844 to register joint-stock companies (which did not even enjoy limited liability), fewer than a thousand registering companies reported having existed before that date. In 1856, when Britain finally allowed limited liability, companies that immediately qualified were still fewer than a thousand. France chartered only 642 corporations before 1867. Prussia, the principal German state before modern Germany emerged in 1871, had even fewer corporations than Britain and France.

In contrast, our recent research documents that the United States chartered more than 13,000 corporations by 1850, and at least twice that many by 1860. Not all of these corporations survived, of course, but probably at least a third of them did. If so, the US had many more corporations in operation than any other country by the mid-19th century, and perhaps more than all other countries put together. The US was the first “corporation nation,” and the comparatively easy access American entrepreneurs had to the corporate form likely contributed greatly to the country’s rapid economic growth after 1790.

Before continuing, we should briefly discuss this concept of limited liability. This is from Wikipedia, but may be corroborated from many other sources:

Limited liability is where a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a company or partnership. If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors.

While I know that many of our friends use it to their own advantage, having limited liability partnerships for their own businesses, the overall concept of limited liability is evil. And while in a limited liability partnership there may be a general partner who has unlimited liability, there have always been legal loopholes by which unlimited liability can also be limited. But corporations are beyond partnerships, and corporate shareholders all have limited liability. Limited liability allows an investor to enjoy the profits of a corporate venture continually, while never being liable for more than the original amount of his investment – regardless of how much the profits have exceeded that original value. This seems to be the ideal legal mechanism for the perpetuation of criminal enterprises, and it is. And from the beginning, the United States has always functioned in a way which accommodates such a system.

From further on in the same article, after explaining the methods by which the authors researched and obtained the data, we read of the year 1812:

...For that year, 23 of the 25 largest corporations were banks. The other two were John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company and the New York Manufacturing Company. In all, by 1812, the US had chartered 1,440 corporations.

The overwhelming importance of banks 200 years ago is an indication of the success of the US financial revolution launched two decades earlier by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists during the first Washington administration. Besides encouraging banking and corporate development, the financial revolution also restructured the national debt on a solid basis, confirmed the specie dollar as the country’s monetary base, founded the first central bank and saw the emergence of modern securities markets and stock exchanges in major cities. The finance sector (banks and insurance companies) dominated the entire 1812 list, making up 44% of the 500 largest companies and 72% of all authorized capital. US economic growth was fueled from the start by a modern financial system that made short- and long-term credit widely available to American entrepreneurs.

So as soon as the ideals of Liberalism had set men free, the power of gold was on its way to enslaving them once again.

In addition to corporate liability, however, there has long been moral debate concerning corporate governance. We shall briefly quote from an article titled Corporate Ownership and Governance in the Early Nineteenth Century, which was written by Eric Hilt for Wellesley College and the National Bureau of Economic Research in February of 2006. The author is a Professor of Economics at the college, and we must note that this is a “preliminary” version of his article, but it is nevertheless informative and well cited. The article opens with a citation from an 1825 manuscript found in the archives of the New York Historical Society Library, which contains an address, To the Stockholders of the Hope Insurance Company, attributed to John Michael O’Connor:

It has now been two years since the Hope Insurance Company ceased to pay any Dividends… What is now the state of this stock? It is not worth in the market 60 per Cent [of its par value]… and the feelings of the unfortunate stockholder who is obliged to sell are aggravated by the refusal of the President & Directors to make a statement of the situation of the company… The only remedy left to save the miserable wrecks of your property is a total change of the Directors & Officers of the Institution at the approaching Election, & the Election in their place of men deeply & pecuniarily interested in its safety & prosperity… men who will not continue to do business which they acknowledge to be ruinous, in order to keep up an expensive Establishment & afford a pretence for paying high salaries to a President, Assistant, Secretary & Clerks.

In response to this, the author states:

Were it not for the antiquated language, this address, delivered in 1825, could have been given by a contemporary activist shareholder. For the Hope Insurance Company of New York City, ownership and control were meaningfully separate: with paid-in capital of $300,000, the firm was owned by 130 different shareholders, many from other states, but managed by a board and officers who were not significant owners. The address illustrates the conflicts that can arise when ownership and control become separate, in terms all to familiar to the contemporary reader. [Concerning ownership of the company, the author notes that his source was “Shareholder information collected from an 1826 manuscript titled List of Names of the several Stockholders of the Hope Insurance Company, which was found in the Comptroller’s Office Records at the New York State Archives.]

We have included this in our discussion only to show how soon it was after America had popularized corporations that not only were investors separated from any real liability apart from their investment, but that the management of the corporations themselves also became separated from those who had an actual financial interest in their success or failure. But because we are also discussing the advent of corporations within the context of the victory of Liberalism, we must discuss with a little further detail the development of corporations in America. After the Revolution, the terms under which manufacturing corporations and incorporated banks came to exist took a few decades to fully develop.

So we will continue with another and lengthier citation from the same paper, from a chapter titled:

Business Incorporations in Early-19th Century New York

The first quarter of the nineteenth century was a period of dramatic change in New York; the population of both the city and the state increased threefold between 1790 and 1820, and with the completion of the Erie canal in 1825, continued growth and prosperity were anticipated. With the development and expansion of many industries, demand for charters of incorporation for businesses increased, and in general the state legislature obliged these requests.

The response of the legislature to petitions for incorporation, however, varied somewhat by industry. At one extreme was manufacturing. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, New York supported manufacturing industries vigorously, offering credit to entrepreneurs and firms, subsidies and prizes for products of high quality, and other forms of encouragement. After granting 24 charters of incorporation to manufacturing businesses between 1808 and 1810, New York enacted a general incorporation act for manufacturing firms in 1811, the first of its kind in the United States. The law provided that five or more people wishing to form a corporation in any of a broad range of manufacturing industries could simply file a certificate with the office of the secretary of state listing their corporate name and a few characteristics of their organization, and they would be deemed incorporated. The law specified most of the provisions of the charters of the businesses incorporated through this process; it required that their capital stock could not exceed $100,000; it granted limited liability; it specified that the stockholders would have one vote per share in the election of directors, and the right to vote by proxy; and it stipulated that the firm could have at most nine directors. Between 1811 and 1830, 196 firms were incorporated through this general act, whereas 58 manufacturing firms were incorporated through special acts of the legislature.

At the other extreme were banks. Private banking enterprises were prohibited from operating in the state in 1804, meaning that a charter was required to enter the industry. Petitions for incorporation in banking were the subject of intense legislative contests, as they faced intense opposition organized by the stockholders of existing banks, who sought to protect the value of their franchise. In an era of partisan patronage systems in the state government, this led inevitably to some rather corrupt practices, and the state was able to capture some of the value of the charters for itself as well. Between 1790 and 1830, 56 petitions for charters of incorporation for banks survived this process and were granted, and another five “Lombard Associations,” or loan companies, which did not have the power to issue notes, and whose shareholders faced unlimited liability, were chartered as well. In a further indication of the political complexities of the bank chartering process, and the tremendous value of obtaining banking privileges in an environment with limited chartering, a few of these banks were actually businesses in industries such as chemical manufacturing, ship manufacturing and repair, and water works, who either had their charters revised by the legislature to grant them banking powers, or who obtained banking powers as part of their original charters. These charters probably represent just a fraction of the petitions for incorporation for banks submitted during those years. Businesses in other industries, such as insurance, did not encounter the same resistance to their petitions to incorporate, and it is likely that a larger fraction of their petitions for charters were approved.

A final category of business whose incorporation process warrants some discussion is franchise corporations, such as turnpike roads, bridges, and canals. With the settlement and growth of many cities in the northern and western part of the state, there was a significant need for improved transportation infrastructure in those areas. Most of this infrastructure was financed by private corporations: between 1800 and 1830, New York chartered 208 turnpike road companies, 66 bridge companies, and 30 canals. As the charters of these enterprises often contained lengthy and detailed specifications of how land would be acquired, the tolls that could be charged, the precise dimensions of the roadway or bridge that would be constructed, and other minutiae, in 1807 the state enacted a law standardizing turnpike charters, which listed the provisions that would be common to all charters. Most of the provisions of this act simply codified the provisions that were entered into most of the turnpike charters that came before it, but importantly, this law mandated several governance provisions that would be included in all turnpike company charters, including the voting rights of shareholders, and the size and responsibility of the board….

While of course we would not believe that all corporations were formed for nefarious purposes, with all of this it should nevertheless be little wonder how gold became king as Liberalism, which was a young and naive form of governance, had developed in America. In fact, we have also explained how the authors of the Protocols were confident that this would happen, because of the lack of experience of the common man in governance, where we had discussed in Part 24 of this series the inevitable failure of democracy.

We have mentioned the personhood of corporations, and before proceeding we should discuss it a little further. Once it is realized that the Courts have actually often taken for granted that corporations should enjoy the rights of persons, the injustice of the fact that corporations are above the punishments which common persons suffer for crimes is highly exacerbated.

The following is from an article entitled Beware of Unintended Economic Consequences by Michael A. Martorelli, published at The Finance Professional’s Post:

THE DEBATE OVER “CORPORATE PERSONHOOD”

Arguably, no decision by a branch of the federal government has spawned more long-lasting unintended economic consequences than the 1886 Supreme Court action in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Actually, it was not the court’s decision in that case that sparked the controversy, but the assertion made by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite’s court reporter in a headnote to the decision that the Court believed the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provision did indeed apply to corporations.

At the time, that brief statement did not seem particularly controversial; various Supreme Courts had confirmed that corporations were considered artificial persons in a dozen cases from 1809 to 1885. Yet it signaled the beginning of a long-running debate about the true meaning of those words. In 10 separate decisions during the next 11 years, the Court refined the right of government to regulate the activities of corporations.

Further, in classic applications of the stare decisis doctrine, the Court repeatedly confirmed that corporations were indeed persons, as noted in the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision, and that they were entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Yet it was a Court reporter’s headnote, not the written opinion of a Justice, that established the amendment’s application to corporations. Subsequent Court decisions in the 19th and 20th centuries reasoned that since corporations were persons, they were entitled to all the protections included in the Constitution.

Since 1886, various Justices have written dissenting opinions regarding the granting of “personhood” status to corporations. It is conceivable that a future Court may revisit the question; many Courts have ignored the concept of stare decisis and reversed the decisions of their predecessors. As noted above, however, in this case there is no decision to overturn, just the periodic affirmations of a concept first articulated in a headnote. It may be more difficult than usual to overturn 125 years of jurisprudence. [Not to be confused with prudence – WRF.]

In sum, the unintended consequences of this body of case law are quite apparent; corporations have some rights (e.g. free speech) and some protections (e.g. against illegal search and seizure) the framers of the Constitution may not have intended to grant them. [Actually, corporations hardly existed when the Constitution was framed – WRF.] It would take much more space to detail the many ways corporations have asserted those rights down through the decades, and how the nation’s economy would have evolved in their absence. It is difficult for legislators, Justices and Presidents to assess the impact their actions may have on future generations. Most people who occupy those positions are much more concerned with the realities of daily life, and with the issues that present themselves for immediate consideration. It falls to historians to remind those in positions of political power to please consider the potential unintended economic consequences of their actions.

The end of the article is a little altruistic, since in reality politicians do not even work for the benefit of the people. As his primary source for this, Martorelli cited a book with the rather lengthy title: On the Road to Santa Clara and Beyond: Travels With The Supreme Court. Stephen J. Field and the Corporate Person, published in 2010 and written by Malcolm J Harkins.

As a digression, I also understand the claims that our unlawful court system treats private individuals as corporate entities in order to assert jurisdiction over them. It is commonly said that the courts are actually mercantile courts. However that has nothing to do with the way corporations themselves are treated in the courts, when it is convenient for them to be treated in such a manner, and when they are granted the rights and privileges that individual citizens are supposed to have, while they have none of the same risks if and when they commit crimes. Individuals are held accountable for their actions and thrown in jail, but no corporation has ever been thrown in jail even though it has been granted the rights and privileges of individuals. So in that respect, corporations are clearly above the law, while still having the benefits that “people” have. So they are not equal in the eyes of the law.

Harkins, who seems to shun titling his books and articles concisely, wrote in a 2014 article titled The Uneasy Relationship of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, the Affordable Care Act, and the Corporate Person: How a Historical Myth Continues to Bedevil the Legal System, which was published by the St. Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy. There he said, concerning this same subject:

The problem confronting the Supreme Court as it takes up the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases is that the concept of corporate personhood did not develop gradually or in an evolutionary process in which the meaning of the concept was developed and defined. Instead, the concept of the corporate person was imposed on the law ipse dixit, that is, by judicial fiat and without definition, in a series of late nineteenth century Supreme Court cases decisions. Those opinions were written by the same Supreme Court Justice, Stephen J. Field, who, if not beholden to railroad interests, was certainly a devoted friend of the railroads. Moreover, Field has no occasion to explain the reasons that corporations possessed the rights of natural persons because, in every one of those cases, the Supreme Court held that, person or not, the corporations had no viable claim for relief.

Although corporations have been treated as legal persons capable of exercising at least some of the rights of natural persons since Colonial times, and despite urban legends to the contrary, the Supreme Court has never provided a rationale that explains why, or when, a corporation is allowed to assert the rights of a natural person….

So in other words, while Stephen Fields was not ruling in favor of the corporations before his Court, he was nevertheless setting precedents which granted them personhood, and because he did not rule in their favor he never had to explain how they merited personhood. These cases may be a wonder to examine, but it seems that ever since that time, it has been taken for granted that corporations have the rights of persons.

But if corporations cannot go to prison like real people, they are actually above the law. When a person commits a crime, our worldly justice systems dictates that he is taken out of circulation commensurate with the crime which he committed. But corporations are not punished in that manner, and they maintain all of their rights as persons free to operate regardless of any crimes they commit. There is a legal newsletter called Corporate Crime Reporter which also has a website, and regularly reports on “our two tier system of criminal justice – one for individuals and one for corporations.” In a rather lengthy report on the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade, referring to the 1990’s, in spite of all sorts of guilty pleas and large monetary settlements for a variety of criminal offenses,out of those 100 most significant cases only one low-level corporate officer went to jail, for a year and a day in a case involving 15 counts violating the Oil Pollution Act in Alaska. And in spite of the exorbitant amount of some of the fines, most of them were small compared to the annual revenue of the companies which paid them. For instance, the top fine on the list was $500 million dollars for a significant antitrust violation by the pharmaceutical concern Hoffmann-La Roche. However the company typically has annual revenue in excess of $50 billion, and profits of nearly $10 billion. If a real person were convicted of such a crime, he and his entire family would lose multiple years of their entire revenue. So corporate criminal penalties really amount to organized bribery of governing entities, or the practices of Jud Suss institutionalized in the modern legal systems of the West.

One would think that after several centuries of chartering corporations, and after a century or so of forced judicial acceptance of the idea that corporations are people too, laws would exist that actually held corporations accountable for crimes, like people are held accountable. This may be the public perception, but it is certainly not true.

A September, 2015 article in the British Independent announces Government abandons plans designed to counter corporate wrongdoing. Following the usual anti-corporate rhetoric we read:

The decision is a blow to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), whose director David Green QC, has championed reform to improve his department’s ability to tackle economic crime. In a speech earlier this month, he said: “If the public interest, in terms of public confidence, demands more prosecutions of corporates, then such change is surely necessary.”

Reform would also benefit the use of US-style deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) he said.

The SFO have yet to use the controversial new powers – where a company agrees to pay a fine and improve its compliance measures in exchange for avoiding prosecution – but the first case of their use is believed to be imminent.

Until corporate liability is reformed “a corporate might conclude if the prosecution of a company is so difficult under our law, why should they agree to a DPA?”, he added.

The Law Commission, which advises the government on law reform, criticised existing corporate liability laws four years ago, describing them as “inappropriate and inadequate” but a full scale review has been dropped.

These so-called Deferred Prosecution Agreements have been implemented in Britain. Rolls Royce just signed such an agreement, ending an investigation involving significant criminal activity. In the United States they have been popular for quite some time, along with the similar Non-Prosecution agreements. An article at the Corporate Crime Reporter website informs us that:

Big companies that are criminally prosecuted represent only the tip of a very large iceberg of corporate wrongdoing. For every company convicted of health care fraud, there are hundreds of others who get away with ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, or face only mild slap-on-the-wrist fines and civil penalties when caught.

For every company convicted of polluting the nation's waterways, there are many others who are not prosecuted because their corporate defense lawyers are able to offer up a low-level employee to go to jail in exchange for a promise from prosecutors not to touch the company or high-level executives.

For every corporation convicted of bribery or of giving money directly to a public official in violation of federal law, there are thousands who give money legally through political action committees to candidates and political parties. They profit from a system that effectively has legalized bribery.

For every corporation convicted of selling illegal pesticides, there are hundreds more who are not prosecuted because their lobbyists have worked their way in Washington to ensure that dangerous pesticides remain legal.

For every corporation convicted of reckless homicide in the death of a worker, there are hundreds of others that don't even get investigated for reckless homicide when a worker is killed on the job. Only a few district attorneys across the country (Michael McCann, the DA in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, being one) regularly investigate workplace deaths as homicides.

Now I am certain that there is a fine line between corporate crime investigator and social justice warrior, but if we seek truth and if we seek to adequately evaluate what is transpiring in the world around us, we must remain objective and unbiased, and elevate ourselves above the false dichotomies of traditional Left and Right, Democrat and Republican, Socialist and Capitalist.

The following is from an academic paper titled Corporate Criminal Liability For Homicide: A Statutory Framework, by James W. Harlow, published under Notes in the Duke Law Journal at Duke University in 2011.

First, the Abstract of the paper, which is 44 pages, reads:

Since the nineteenth century, judges, legislators, prosecutors, and academics have grappled with how best to accommodate within the criminal law corporations whose conduct causes the death of others. The result of this debate was a gradual legal evolution towards acceptance of corporate criminal liability for homicide. But, as this Note argues, the underlying legal framework for such liability is ill fitting and largely ineffective. Given the public benefit that would accrue from a clearly defined and potent liability scheme, this Note proposes a model criminal statute that would hold corporations directly liable for homicide. The proposed statute draws upon basic precepts of corporate criminal liability, as well as legislative developments in the United Kingdom and the insights of organizational theory. Ultimately, this Note argues that a statutory scheme would allow prosecutions of corporations for homicide to proceed more accurately, effectively, and fairly.

So what we see here is that a law student at a prestigious law school has observed that there is a lack of laws by which to prosecute homicides committed by corporations, as recently as November of 2011. But if corporations are really persons, why aren’t they subject to the same laws that the rest of us are subject to? And if corporations have been considered persons for over a hundred years, why is this even an issue?

Harlow was a candidate for Juris Doctor when he wrote this, a degree he expected to obtain in 2012. However the fact that this article was published by the school is a realization that the school admits the article’s claims. Here is the Introduction to Harlow’s article:

On April 5, 2010, an explosion ripped through the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia, claiming the lives of twenty-nine miners. A report commissioned by West Virginia’s governor determined that the explosion was caused by the ignition of methane and coal dust, which had built up in the mine due to insufficient ventilation and malfunctioning water-spray systems. From June 2006 to April 2010, federal officials had cited Performance Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey Energy and the owner of the Upper Big Branch mine, hundreds of times for serious safety violations. In fourteen of the fifteen months leading up the explosion, the Upper Big Branch mine received citations related to its handling of coal dust – a primary cause of the April 5th explosion. Despite these repeated safety violations, Upper Big Branch management did not implement an effective compliance program, instead adopting a “catch me if you can” mentality toward regulation.

In April 2010, an explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico claimed eleven lives. A presidential investigatory commission found that the explosion resulted from a failure to properly seal off the well and contain the enormous pressures that had built up inside. The commission also determined that the root causes of the explosion could “be traced back to underlying failures of management and communication” by BP – formerly British Petroleum – who, along with its partners, owned and operated the rig. For example, BP engineers had continued to revise the procedure for sealing the well until hours before the explosion without a full risk assessment. Furthermore, prior to the explosion, rig workers had worried about safe practices taking a back seat to drilling operations and about their inability to communicate their concerns to senior managers ashore. Transocean, the company that operated the rig, left the crew in the dark about an “eerily similar near-miss” that took place on another rig a few months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Between June and November of 2010, six residents at North Carolina’s Glen Care assisted-living center died after being infected with hepatitis B during blood-sugar checks by facility staff. Upon investigation, state health inspectors found that the staff were generally untrained in disease prevention and had reused improperly sterilized equipment to check the residents’ glucose levels—both of which constituted regulatory violations. Although the center’s management had known that precautionary training was required by state law and had offered training sessions for staff members, management had failed to ensure that all of the staff members had received the necessary instruction.

Each of the above examples illustrates a common flaw in the relationship between a corporation and its employees or the consumers of its products. In each instance, a corporation failed to adhere to government regulations or to internal policies designed to prevent harm. Each lapse resulted in the death of at least one individual, suggesting the potential applicability of criminal homicide law. Yet none of these examples will likely result in the filing of homicide charges, let alone a successful prosecution for the crime.

Now Harlow’s footnotes discuss ongoing investigations, and speculated the unlikely prospect of any prosecution for murder. The speculation was based on a lack of prosecution in a similar mining case in Utah, which was documented by Howard Berkes. However in the Big Branch case there actually was a prosecution, if only because of the notoriety of the case itself. The New York Times reported on December 3rd, 2015, that there was a Mixed Verdict for Donald Blankenship, Ex-Chief of Massey Energy, After Coal Mine Blast:

Donald L. Blankenship, whose leadership of the Massey Energy Company was widely criticized after 29 workers were killed in the Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, was convicted Thursday of conspiring to violate federal safety standards, becoming the most prominent American coal executive ever convicted of a crime related to mining deaths.

But in a substantial defeat for the Justice Department, the verdict, announced in Federal District Court here, exonerated Mr. Blankenship, Massey’s former chief executive, of three felony charges that could have led to a prison term of 30 years. Instead, after a long and complex trial that began on Oct. 1, jurors convicted Mr. Blankenship only of a single misdemeanor charge that carried a maximum of a year in prison.

“We are disappointed, but not as disappointed as we could have been,” said William W. Taylor III, a lawyer for Mr. Blankenship, who will appeal the conviction. Sentencing is expected next spring.

An explanatory correction to the article made two days later states that “Mr. Blankenship was convicted of a single count of conspiring to violate federal safety standards; he was not convicted of any count holding him responsible for the 2010 accident at the Upper Big Branch mine.” Another follow-up article written and published on April 6th, 2016, after Blankenship lost his court appeals states that “Although Mr. Blankenship was not accused of direct responsibility for the accident, the deadliest in American coal mining in about 40 years, the disaster prompted the inquiry that ultimately led to his conviction.” So the bottom line is that 29 men were killed because of purposeful corporate negligence, and nobody is held to account for the crime.

As for the Deepwater Horizon case, a December, 3rd, 2015 article in the Guardian announced Manslaughter charges dropped against two BP employees in Deepwater spill, which said in part:

US federal prosecutors have dropped manslaughter charges against two BP employees connected to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, making it highly unlikely that anyone will ever serve prison time over the far-reaching calamity.

The dropping of the charges against the two rig supervisors – Donald Vidrine and Robert Kaluza – ends the US government’s pursuit of criminal charges over the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 which resulted in 11 deaths and the worst environmental disaster in US history.

The same two men continued to face charges of violating the Clean Water Act. Kaluza was ultimately acquitted, but Vidrine pled guilty and, as Reuter’s reported, he was ultimately sentenced to ten months of probation.

As for the Glen Care nursing home case, we could only find news on a blog that reports on outbreaks of hepatitis that a “state panel recommended a $16,000 fine Thursday for an assisted living center where six died from Hepatitis B”, and we found nothing concerning criminal prosecution.

While Blankenship was indeed the top executive officer of Massey Energy Company, the outcome of the BP Deepwater Horizon case seems to validate the assertions of the writers at the Corporate Crime Reporter that “For every company convicted of polluting the nation's waterways, there are many others who are not prosecuted because their corporate defense lawyers are able to offer up a low-level employee to go to jail in exchange for a promise from prosecutors not to touch the company or high-level executives.” Except that in this case the low-level employees didn’t even go to jail. [Not that we want anyone to go to jail, but we are only describing the injustice that corporations are not punished for their crimes.] Harlow’s paper goes on to describe how the law has been consistently obfuscated and confused by both judges and lawyers in a way which seems that when crimes are perpetrated under the guise of corporations, individuals are unlikely to be prosecuted for their misdeeds.

As a digression, now that he is out of prison, Forbes has reported that Don Blankenship has announced just yesterday that he is running for the U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia. Rather amusingly, the article states that “‘Government corruption’ will be a cornerstone of his campaign and one designed to take down Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.” But Don Blankenship is not a Jew, but for whatever reason, or possibly just for the notoriety of the case, he was prosecuted, but he is an exception to the historical norm.

So long as there are lawyers, corporations are going to be above the law. Theodore R. Lotchin, a Washington D.C. lawyer, wrote an article published in the William & Mary Law Review in 2004 and titled No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? Establishing a Self-evaluating Privilege for Corporate Internal Investigations. In the introduction to that article, he says:

The public image of corporate America has taken a beating. Arguably, no period of history has seen corporations struggle through such a widespread range of civil and criminal enforcement activities at the hands of government agencies. [So he implies that the government is the bad guy – WRF.] On any given day the business sections of the country's newspapers are full of grand jury testimony, indictments, and settlement agreements between federal enforcement agencies and high-profile corporations or their boards of directors. According to the Washington Post, "[a] former top mutual fund executive pleaded guilty … to tampering with evidence to thwart a probe of illegal trading and agreed to pay $400,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle allegations that he cut deals giving special trading privileges to certain wealthy customers. On the same day, "[t]he New York Stock Exchange … found evidence that the five largest of seven 'specialist' firms that control trading on the exchange regularly engaged in abusive practices …. [that] have cost investors as much as $150 million," and "[a] former executive with the McKesson Corporation pleaded guilty … to securities fraud charges in connection with an accounting scandal that cost shareholders of the company $9 billion." While the New York Times affirmed that "Richard M. Scrushy, the founder and ousted chief executive of HealthSouth, refused to answer lawmakers' questions … about his knowledge of a fraud scheme at the company," the Wall Street Journal reported that "Jury deliberations in the fraud trial of a former Rite Aid Corp executive headed into a third day, after jurors failed to reach a verdict yesterday." Although shockingly extensive, perhaps the most troubling aspect of these headlines is that they represent only one day in the life of corporate America.

In response to the increased pressure resulting from these public embarrassments, corporations have turned to internal investigations as a way of placating federal investigators and fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders. At the most basic level, internal investigations involve an extensive fact-finding effort on the part of either a corporation's general counsel or an independent legal professional. [A lot of this is conjecture, perhaps for propaganda purposes – WRF.] Corporations may initiate an internal investigation "in response to an ongoing government investigation or agency subpoena, pursuant to a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or another government agency," or "[a]n investigation may … be prompted internally, through either a complaint or grievance from an employee or group of employees." Once a threat to a corporation's stability becomes apparent, both directors and managers may hold an affirmative duty to investigate any potential irregularities. Accordingly, the decision to conduct an internal investigation can have far-reaching impacts, both positive and negative.

Regardless of the immediate motivation, a corporation may realize some important benefits from conducting an internal investigation. First, a corporation that releases the results of an internal investigation to government regulators may be able to secure more lenient civil or criminal penalties. Second, conducting an internal investigation allows a corporation to respond proactively to any potential litigation by controlling the flow of relevant information. Third, even in the absence of litigation, an internal investigation may help improve corporate performance.'" At the very least an internal investigation is concrete evidence that a corporation's directors have fulfilled their fiduciary duties to their shareholders.

As with any business decision, corporate directors must balance these benefits against the potential risks of conducting an internal investigation. By definition, conducting an internal investigation presents the probability of discovering damaging information. In addition, a corporation may be inviting a federal enforcement action by sharing the results of an internal investigation with government regulators in the absence of an immunity or confidentiality agreement. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a corporation that prepares an internal investigation always runs the risk that the final product may be discoverable in subsequent civil litigation. In other words, even if an investigation is prepared in cooperation with an enforcement agency, potential plaintiffs may be able to gain access to a corporation's most sensitive information. In this scenario a corporation that has acted in good faith to discover evidence of its own wrongdoing, in essence, has created a litigation roadmap for any disgruntled shareholder or employee looking for a potential payday.

Lotchin had opened his paper with a quote from Theodore Roosevelt which said:

"Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions .… The first requisite is knowledge, full and complete."

He is clearly an apologist for modern capitalism. Then he proceeds to cite case law and give reasons why corporations which implement their own investigations into their own corporate wrongdoing should be treated more leniently by governing authorities. To us, imagining that corporations can and should police themselves, Lotchin is actually making a sophisticated argument as to why and how corporate officers can remain above the law, regretting that so many of them are caught up in wrongdoing on each business day.

What if people could investigate their own wrongdoing? What if people could bring their own evidence to the government authorities when they are suspected of a crime? What if you hurt someone and told the cops that you would get your uncle to investigate the incident? If corporations are people, how are they treated differently than people? Because the authors of the Protocols have endeavored to create a special class of people who are above the law, and they did. Lawyers like Lotchin exist to obfuscate the issues and make certain that they stay above the law.

Just as the Corporate Crime Reporter suggests, “For every company convicted of health care fraud, there are hundreds of others who get away with ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, or face only mild slap-on-the-wrist fines and civil penalties when caught… For every corporation convicted of bribery or of giving money directly to a public official in violation of federal law, there are thousands who give money legally through political action committees to candidates and political parties….” For every company official convicted of insider trading, there are hundreds of others engaged in insider trading, and on and on and on….

But these are only the small things to consider in light of this statement of the Protocols. There are many more important aspects to consider than what we have presented here. However these small details should be pondered so that they point the way to awareness of the larger problems, and if we understand these things from the perspective of the law school academics, then we can understand how deep the deception is actually rooted.