This relates to "corporate personhood" and the recent Supreme Court decision
in "Citizens United v. FEC".
Document 1: This is my original complaint.
Document 2: This is Time Warner's answer to my complaint
Document 3: This is Time Warner's memo in support of motion for Summary Judgment.
Document 4: This is my response to Time Warner's motion for summary judgment.
This forms the crux of my "corporate personhood" argument.
For anyone currently working on the Corporate Personhood issue, I suggest you study this memo carefully.
Study the cited case law, and especially look at the nexus with State Action.
THIS IS A HUGE WEAKNESS in the legal theory of corporations.
Why? Because citizens have a constitutional protections from encroachments by state actors.
There is a ton of state action here, folks!!!
If it can be shown that corporations are chartered by state action for a public benefit and in the public interest,
then the people already have protections against them. No Amendment Necessary!
Document 5: This is Judge McAvoy's TERRIBLE decision. About 5 major errors any first year law student could spot:
- he cited dicta -- no value as precident/stare decisis
- he cited unpublished decisions -- non-controlling, no value as precident/stare decisis
- he cited decisions from foreign circuits -- non-controlling, no value as precident/stare decisis
- he cited caselaw which was different in fact (eg. the "Loce" case, which was about leased access, not public access -- no value asprecident/stare decisis
Document 6: This is my Appellant's Brief before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Study this if you want to understand all the errors in Judge McAvoy's decision.
Document 7: This is the Second Circuit's Decision to uphold the lower court's bad decision.
Interesting note here: Judge Sonia Sotomayor was the author of this decision,
who now sits on the US Supreme Court.
During my oral arguments (pro-se litigants are limited to just 5 min) Judge Sotomayor
interrpted my presentation of the errors of the lower court (appropriate jurisdiction for an appelate court),
and blew my the remainder of my time on a bizarre question regarding the facts of the case: "Why
do you want NY State to pay for your TV shows?". Not only was this not true and completely out of the blue,
but these kinds of questions about material facts are generally NOT appropriate for the appelate court,
unless it relates to alleged errors of law or discretion committed by the lower court.
|Hey read this! |
A Constitutional Amendment is not usually necessary to overrule the Supreme Court.
A simple law will suffice.
We can also ask the Senate to impeach 5 judges!
I hope this helps someone.
Will Huston WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY Phone: 607-321-7846
SocialNet: http://facebook.com/billhuston http://myspace.com/MrMouthyMan
Videos: http://youtube.com/billhuston http://vimeo.com/billhuston
Bio/blog: http://binghamtonpmc.org/bio.html http://WilliamAHuston.blogspot.com
Binghamton-area discussion; spirituality topics: http://tinyurl.com/STNYlightworkers
Watch for Open-To-Everyone TV! http://www.O2ETV.org