L.B.Bork seeks to Stop American Resistance to Marxism
Sent: Saturday, October
25, 2003 3:04 AM
Subject: L.B.Bork seeks to
Stop American Resistance to Marxism
Mr. L. B. Bork of "PAC in Law" has found a devious way
to PROFIT from the "RED SCARE" that he promotes. He teaches
American citizens to, 'ABANDON ALL HOPE', 'GIVE UP THE FIGHT,' "DON'T
VOTE" 'LET THE MARXIST-DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL of the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT' 'LET THEM INCREASE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES' 'LET THEM
TAKE OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY HELD IN CORPORATIONS'
For this Advice, L.B. Bork charges his PAC in Law "members" $800
dollars.
L.B. Bork's claim that America "IS" a "communist
country" today is WISHFUL THINKING on his
part. Bork has positioned himself to profit from all who
take his Defeatist Hysterics on face value.
My property right to arrest and manhandle trespassers on my land is
secured by the LAWS of the STATE (See Rights of Landowner to Use Force at
www.billstclair.com/ferran
) but it is under constant attack by idiots (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/dear_fellow_property.htm)
and by actual Marxists whom L.B. Bork has dedicated his life to AIDING AND
ABETTING. As a Landowner, it is obvious to me that anyone who tells
the people that NOT VOTING AGAINST Marxist-Democrats is a good idea,
is an ENEMY TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, and a FRIEND of
MARXIST-DEMOCRATS.
US Corporations hold much of the private
wealth (property) of private American citizens, and therefore represent the
"means of production" which Marxist Communists desire to place under the control
of the government. Thus, terminating "corporate
protections" secured by the US Constitution is
the avowed ambition of the "U.S.
Marxist-Leninist Organization" http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm
"President Harry Truman ... embraced the idea
[of] accusing the Democrats of being 'soft' on Communism."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
In 1950, some believed that Marxist Communist propagandists were not a
"“clear and present danger” to the United States, but the United State
government still prosecuted them successfully:
But today Marxist Propagandists are "working with
individuals and existing groups to launch democratic insurgencies that put
corporations once again subordinate to ... democratic
authority...,
and strip fundamental powers-such as
... due process-from corporations."
http://www.poclad.org/ They
purport to justify this Marxist Revolution over private management of property
in terms of ending "the authority of corporations to govern" the "means of
production", and to place the means of production under "democratic
authority" by "strip[ing away] fundamental [rights] -such as
..due process-from corporations." "The Communist Party
... was heavily involved with the Progressive movement."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
"The
Communist Party, nevertheless, does
not seek its strength primarily in numbers. Its aim is a relatively small
party whose strength is in
selected, dedicated, indoctrinated, and rigidly disciplined members. ...
It also seeks to infiltrate ... groups." Dennis v. United
States (1951)
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Dennis/Jackson.html
L. B. Bork is one of the subversives working to abet the
Marxists' "Progressive" take-over the Federal Government, and ultimately,
to take control of private property held by American citizens (e.g., held within
corporations, 401K retirement plans, etc.). L.B. Bork has admitted that he
is dedicated to subverting the Due Process "Protections" for private
Property (which is what "corporate" assets are) under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. (see his words below)
I am opposing Bork's agenda and exposing his vicious Lies and
his Treasonous subversions. Therefore, Bork recently
complained:
"The facts support that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
benefit corporations. ...
To any that receive this
correspondence; this Mark Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed
him a dangerous person to the movement to restore proper
government which includes terminating corporate protections under
the 14th amendment." L.B. Bork October 21, 2003
(See more about Bork copied below)
"
Communist systems are premised on the state forcibly depriving
owners of all productive assets. Less ambitious
socialist systems
nationalize only some tools of production, transportation, or communication.
Fascism is a system in which
title to property remains in private
hands, but
control is exercised by the state."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer54.html
Our Constitution, particularly, the Fourteenth Amendment, stands
in opposition to the establishment of such arbitrary governmental control
over private corporations and other "private property."
"[T]he prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process
of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political
history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his,
free of governmental interference." Fuentes v. Shevin,
407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972) (citing Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S.
538).
http://www.geocities.com/towcrime/fuentesvshevin.html
By the Due Process of Law Clauses of the Constitution, State and Federal
Officials are "absolutely prohibited ... to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law." United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220
(1882); Tindale v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204, 217 (1897). "The enforcement of these
limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to
protect the rights of individuals ... as against the violence of public agents
transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and
wielding the force of the government." Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516,
535-36 (1884). Part 1
www.billstclair.com/ferran
L.B. Bork admitted that he wants to put private property held in
"corporations" outside the "protections" of the Constitution,
and he clearly wants to prevent Anti-Communist
American citizens from voting in Federal Elections (so that the
"Progressive" Marxist-Democrat "insurgents" can take over the Federal
Government and then take over the control of private property).
I certainly am proud to admit and to have it duly noted that I
stand opposed to L.B. Bork's subversion of Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights and opposed to his attempts to neutralize the VOTE
of those American Citizens who should be vigorously resisting the Political
Efforts of the Marxist-Democrats to take over this
Country.
The Fight is NOT OVER!!!!
I did not see L.B. Bork, nor Don
Wert, there.
L.B. BORK cares nothing at all about this "country" we
call "America". Bork HATES this Country (America) and is only looking
to increases his own profit when he tells you to GIVE UP THE FIGHT AND TO
PAY HIM TO TEACH YOU HOW TO HAND OVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE
MARXIST-DEMOCRATS. BORK IS A TRAITOR, and a CON-MAN who uses a "RED
SCARE" to prey upon Patriotic American citizens.
Property Rights are defined by the LAW of the States,
not by a purported senate resolution from 1933.
"STATE LAW determines whether or
not a liberty/property interest exists. Federal law defines what process is due.
According to the Supreme Court, "property interests . . . are created and their
dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an
independent source such as state law." Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986
(1984)."
"
'Property' is more than just the physical thing-the land,
the bricks, the mortar-it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident
to ownership of the physical thing.
[T]he right to use
the physical thing
to the exclusion of others is the most
essential and beneficial.'" Dickman v. Commissioner, 465
U.S. 330, 336 (1984).
http://billstclair.com/ferran/righttouseforce.html
A reasonable interpretation of the alleged 1933 Senate Resolution
is that:
1) PROPERTY is made valuable by the right to EXCLUSIVE
"possession" and "use" of it;
3) All private property is "subject" to the state's power of EMINENT
DOMAIN" which is a power to TAKE private property When "public
necessity" requires it. (This is how the Roman Apian Way was created.
This is how many public highways are created) This Power exists in every
government, and is noted in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which
prescribes that Private Property Shall Not Be Taken Without Just
Compensation. This topic is discussed in my article "
LAW, a
Revolutionary Idea For Peace" archived (and first published by)
Bob Schulz at
http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm
The United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall,
623, 627] "Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and
unforeseen occasions arise, however;... in cases of extreme necessity, in time
of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may
be impressed into public service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public
use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . ."
The "Due Process" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates"
this right to "Just Compensation" and thus it secures the private property
that is held within corporations from being summarily "expropriated" by the
state governments. L.B. Bork wants to change this Law so that Marxists in
state governments can seize "corporate" assets without the protection of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Unlike the Due Process of Law Clauses, which absolutely prohibit all
arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of life, liberty, and property, it is said
that the Takings/Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment "is designed
not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se,
but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference
amounting to a taking." First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale, v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987).
The Terrible and Ancient power of Eminent Domain is said to be a
power inherent in any and all sovereign governments, including the several
States:
"The states existed prior to this [US] government. Each of them
possessed all the rights and powers which appertain to sovereign and
independent nations [e.g., the Power of Eminent Domain]. For all the
purposes of self-government, no want of power, or the means of using it, was
felt by any of these communities. Life, liberty, reputation, and
property, all found an ample protection in the state
governments. If any internal improvement were necessary, within its limits, the
sovereign power of the state, having entire and uncontrolled
jurisdiction, could cause it to be undertaken and effected. For none of these
purposes or objects was there a defect of competency in the state
governments. "
The Federal "government is one of limited, delegated powers,
and can only act on subjects expressly placed under its control by the
Constitution, and upon such other matters as may be necessarily and properly
within the sphere of its action, to enable it to carry the enumerated and
specified powers into execution, and without which the powers granted would be
inoperative."
Yet, the Federal Government has been granted, by the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Power to Secure Private Property from Unauthorized
Deprivations, if only the People would DEMAND that it do so. (See Part 1 and
Part 2 at
www.billstclair.com/ferran )
The Federal Government has NO authority to interfere with the Law of
the States over the definition of private property, except to restrain the
states from violating private property rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not make it a "CRIME" to
VOTE. L.B. BORK IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Bork says
that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment means: "the right to vote at any
election is denied except for participation in rebellion, or other crime"
(ellipsis omitted from quote of Bork)
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment ordains:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to
their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or
the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such state,
being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such state."
In summary, States that have "in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime" "the right" (to vote) of "any
male inhabitants of such state" shall have their representation in the House of
Representatives reduced accordingly. Thus, the 14h Amendment tends to
SECURE "the right" of male inhabitants of such a state who are "citizens of
the United States" to Vote in STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, except those
males who participated "rebellion, or other
crime."
Therefore, L.B. Bork is nothing but a pathetic LIAR.
Most states do not allow incarcerated criminals (e.g., felons are
traditionally "disenfranchised" upon conviction) to vote, but according to this
provision of the US constitution, the State's representation in the House
of Representatives is not diminished for the reason that it disenfranchises
criminals from Voting. L.B. Bork distinctly asserted on October
21, 2003 that it states "in the [Fourteenth]
amendment that it is a crime to vote. "
L.B. Bork is a Pathological LIAR.
How does anyone take seriously a man like L.B. Bork who asserts that the
Constitution makes it "a crime to vote" in state or federal elections? I
just don't understand how he can get anyone to pay him money for his ridiculous
advice. There must be some really very stupid and hateful people in this
Country. I do tend to agree that those very stupid people have a right to
and should renounce their US citizenship. They are an embarrassment to
this country. And I think it would be good if such very stupid people
did not Vote, because they would probably vote for the
Marxist-Progressive Agenda (against private property held in
corporations) that L.B. Bork promotes.
See Title 8 sec. 1481 "A person who is a national of
the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality
by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of
relinquishing United States nationality...."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
One automatically looses his US citizenship by:
"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to
overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring
to violate any of the provisions of section
2383 of title
18, or willfully performing any act in violation of
section
2385 of title
18, or violating section
2384 of title
18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down,
or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war
against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a
court of competent jurisdiction."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Specifically:
"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the
duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the
government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory,
District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision
therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
"Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction
of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells,
distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating,
advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or
violence, or attempts to do so" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
"Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any
society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons, knowing the purposes thereof" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html "shall
lose his nationality" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Thus, it is not difficult to loose or
renounce one's "American" Nationality or Citizenship, and it is not necessary to
PAY L.B. Bork $400 or $800 to teach you how to do it.
Incidentally, Communists who "conspired . . . to organize as
the Communist Party and willfully to advocate and teach the principles of
Marxism-Leninism," which the government alleged to mean "overthrowing and
destroying the government of the United States by force and violence" at some
unspecified future time, have been convicted of violating this Law, and of
loosing their American citizenship, and the United States Supreme Court upheld
the convictions by a vote of six (including four Truman appointees) to
two.. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm
and http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_resources/class_web_sites/media_law/sedition.html
In Dennis v. United States6 The Supreme Court upheld "the convictions
of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges of conspiracy to violate the
advocacy and organizing sections of the statute." http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg1068.shtml
Thus, our Laws are opposed to Communism in its raw and virulent forms.
L.B. Bork wants American Citizens to STOP
resisting the Marxist Communists, by refraining from VOTING AGAINST THEM in
FEDERAL ELECTIONS. This, L.B. Bork is aiding and abetting the
Marxist-Communist-Progressive "insurgents" whose Doctrines deriding the
Constitutional Protection of Private Property held in corporations he ADOPTS,
PROMOTES, AND ENDORSES.
People own corporations, and
corporate assets are private property and are protected by
the Constitution (e.g., Fourteenth Amendment). I am a defender of private
property rights; L.B. Bork seeks to make property (at least within corporations)
less secure. Below, L.B. Bork further demonstrates that his
ultimate aim is not only to enrich himself at the expense of desperate
Tax-averse "American citizens", but also to Aide and Abet the Marxists
(Democrats) in the United States who seek to undermine and to abolish the
Institution of Private Property in these united States. L.B. Bork has admitted
that he is not only dedicated to the Leftist goal of neutralizing the Vote of
Anti-Communist "American citizens" in Federal Elections, but also dedicated to
the Leftist goal of "terminating corporate protections [for their private
property] under the 14th amendment."
The Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth
Amendment extend their "protections" to the PRIVATE PROPERTY of private
individuals, even when that private property is held within business
"corporations." See Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran
<http://www.billstclair.com/ferran>
The Due Process Clauses (of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) are the
primary obstacles to the Marxist ambitions of Democrats.com and other Leftists
to abolish the private property rights of landowners and of corporate
shareholders, and to expropriate corporately held private property. Therefore, a
Con-Man like L.B. Bork, who is dedicated to "terminating corporate protections
under the 14th amendment" is an Abettor of the Marxist (Democrat.com) Agenda in
the United States.
US Corporations hold the private wealth (property) of American citizens, and
therefore represent the "means of production" which Marxist Communists desire to
place under the control of the government. Thus, terminating "corporate
protections" secured by the US Constitution is the avowed ambition
of the "U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization" <http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm>
Bork states:
"The facts support that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
benefit corporations. ...
To any that receive this
correspondence; this Mark Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed
him a dangerous person to the movement to restore proper
government which includes terminating corporate protections under
the 14th amendment." LB Bork October 21, 2003
Indeed, Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl is an opponent of
L.B. Bork's Marxist-Progressive "movement" to "terminate ... protections [of
PRIVATE PROPERTY] under the 14th amendment."
(See more about Bork copied
below)
IF YOU HATE THIS COUNTRY AND (CORPORATE) PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS
MUCH AS L.B. BORK and his Cult Members do, then I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
RENOUNCE YOUR US CITIZENSHIP AND LEAVE
THIS COUNTRY.
And, if you think you value the Institution of Private Property
somewhat but are too much of a coward or a FOOL to VOTE against
Marxist Progressives in Federal Elections, or to otherwise FIGHT THE
FIGHT of resistance to Marxism, then JUST LEAVE!!!
MARK R. FERRAN BSEE scl JD mcl
My public "references":
"Mark Ferran is a prominent legal analyst and essayist."
----- Original Message -----
Subject: THE "P" WORD ["Progressive?" or "PAC in
Law" ]
THE "P" WORDBy
Randy Thomasson
October 22, 2003
Randy Thomasson is
founder and executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a
leading pro-family organization on the West Coast.
Liberal activists in the Democratic Party, like to call themselves
“progressive” because they think it sounds better than “liberal.” And the
liberal media is picking up on it, using the “p” word more frequently. Yet
what is progressive, and what is conservative, and which do people really
prefer? From my 10 years of pro-family leadership in the nation's largest
state, here’s what I’ve observed:
1. Your Money: Progressives
believe that government needs more tax money to create a better society.
Conservatives believe that individuals, families and businesses will have a
better chance to thrive if they keep more of their own money.
2.
Religious Freedom: Progressives believe that abortion, evolution,
homosexuality and transsexuality are superior to the rights of religious
citizens. Conservatives believe that religious freedom is a sacred right of
conscience and protected in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
3. Life: Progressives believe that unwanted life in
the womb is tissue that should be aborted, even at taxpayer expense, through all
nine months of pregnancy. Conservatives believe the scientific evidence that an
unborn baby is an innocent human being that deserves protection.
4.
Education: Progressives believe that schoolchildren should not receive
letter grades or have to pass exit exams, that good teachers should not receive
merit pay, and that parents should not have the right to choose their own
child's school. Conservatives believe that rigorous academic standards,
classroom discipline and parental choice in education are key components of
training up the next generation.
5. Parental Rights: Progressives
believe that the government has rights over children and should give kids
condoms, abortions, psychotropic drugs and homosexual education without parental
permission. Conservatives believe that children belong to their parents, not to
the state.
6. Crime: Progressives believe that people aren't
responsible for the crimes they commit, but that poverty and environmental
reasons make them do it. Conservatives believe that people make moral choices
and criminals are responsible for their own conduct.
7. Marriage:
Progressives believe that marriage can be for two homosexuals, and "gay
marriage" is what society needs. Conservatives believe that the rights and
privileges of marriage are only for a married man and a woman.
8.
Human Value: Progressives believe that plants and animals are more important
than the needs of humans. Conservatives believe that human needs for housing,
for example, are superior to plants, kangaroo rats and red-legged
frogs.
9. Transsexuality: Progressives believe that government
should approve of sex-change operations and punish businesses that don't want to
hire cross-dressers. Conservatives believe that you are born male or female, not
in-between.
10. Home Defense: Progressives believe that gun
ownership should be illegal or extremely limited and that gun manufacturers
should be punished when an innocent person is killed a criminal with a gun.
Conservatives believe that owning a gun is becoming increasingly necessary to
defend your home, that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and
that criminals who misuse guns are the ones who should be
punished.
11. Obscenity: Progressives believe that public nudity
and obscenity on TV are protected free speech. Conservatives believe that
indecent behavior is bad for society, and in many cases is or should be
prohibited for the sake of children and adults alike.
12. English
Language: Progressives believe that there should be no national language and
that the government should print documents in multiple languages. Conservatives
believe that there should be a common language, and because this is America,
that language is English.
As you can see, most conservative values are
compatible with family values. I think it's time to accurately define
"progress." To me, progress has always been about "getting to where you want to
be" and "strengthening the things that are good." Yet with liberal
progressives trashing nearly every cultural tradition and sacred institution
they can lay their hands on, it can be legitimately said that progressives are
regressive and, ultimately, destructive.
[The RIGHT to participate in YOUR governments decisions is one you will
lose if you don't use it.]
Copyright 2003 Campaign for California Families
ADD to this the Leftist's views of Private Property
managed by corporations:
13. PRIVATE PROPERTY HELD IN CORPORATIONS: The avowed
ambition of Progressives (Marxists) is terminating "
corporate
protections" secured by the US
Constitution as stated in the writings of
the "U.S.
Marxist-Leninist Organization" http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm Marxist
Propagandists are "working with individuals and existing groups to
launch democratic insurgencies that put corporations once again subordinate
to ... democratic authority...,
and strip
fundamental powers-such as ... due process-from
corporations."
http://www.poclad.org/ They
purport to justify this Marxist Revolution over private management of property
in terms of ending "the authority of corporations to govern" the "means of
production", and to place the means of production under "democratic
authority" by "strip[ing away] fundamental [rights] -such as
..due process-from corporations."
L.B. Bork and his "PAC in Law" cult members are among the
"individuals and existing groups" who are launching "insurgencies that put
corporations once again subordinate to ... democratic
authority..., and strip fundamental powers-such as
..due process-from corporations." But L.B.
Bork's insideous Role is to NEUTRALIZE THE VOTES and activism
of "American citizens" who would otherwise naturally resist the
Marxist-Progresive assault upon the Wealth and Morals of this Country.
L.B. Bork tells "US citizens" to STOP VOTING IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS AGAINST
anything that is contrary to their interests. L.B. Bork calls this process
"Emancipat[ing] your self from [your] federal government" so that the
Progressives/Democrats/Marxists can take it over and abolish the Private
Property Rights of People who own shares of Corporations.
L.B. Bork is dedicated to the destruction of the
Constitutional "protections" that prevent the Marxist expropriation or control
of the private PROPERTY which corporations hold and manage for the
benefit of their shareholders (We the People). L.B. Bork is effectively a
Marxist (Democrat), and he buys into the Marxist Propaganda that
all Capitalists (e.g., corporate shareholders) are scum, but he is simply
too ignorant to understand (or too greedy to admit) the implications
of his dedication to destroying "protections" for private property held
within corporations:
Sent: Tuesday,
October 21, 2003 4:26
PM
Did you read the law
reviews on the Fourteenth Amendment? Probably not. The facts support that the
purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to benefit
corporations. ...
The plain and simple fact is: YOU ARE DUMB AS A POST. “The Capitalists are the Communists and the
Communists are the Capitalists.”
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: Frauds that L.B. Bork perpetrates against US
citizens -Rough Draft.
To any that receive this correspondence; this Mark
Ferran is attacking me and my work. ... I have deemed him a
dangerous person to the movement to restore proper government which includes
terminating corporate protections under the 14th
amendment."
LB
Bork
The very First Plank of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
is: "Abolition of property in land and
application of all rents of land to [government, not private]
purposes." "American Communists, Socialists and Liberals have worked very
hard to force central planning on farmers. They have been very successful
through regulations aimed at destroying the small
independent family owned farm. Only the large corporations have the
capability, the man-power to research and obey all of the millions of federal
regulations." Therefore, all that the American Communists,
Socialists and Liberals need to do now in order to centralize governmental
control over private property (land) and the means of agricultural
production, is to "eliminat[e] the corporate
protections under the 14th amendment." Once they destroy the
property rights of persons (e.g., property held within corporations) that
are now secured by the Law Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
there will be nothing to stand in the way of complete governmental expropriation
of Private Property and the application of
all its profits to government purposes. L.B. Bork has
admitted that he is dedicated to this final subversive step to
advance the objectives of the American Communists, Socialists and
Liberals.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October
22, 2003 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: Frauds that
L.B. Bork perpetrates against US citizens -UPDATE
Folks:
Below, L.B. Bork further demonstrates that his ultimate aim is
not only to enrich himself at the expense of desparate Tax-averse "American
citizens", but also to Aide and Abet the Marxists (Democrats) in the
United States who seek to undermine and to abolish the Institution of Private
Property in these united States. L.B. Bork has admitted that he is not
only dedicated to the Leftist goal of neutralizing the Vote of
Anti-Communist "American citizens" in Federal Elections, but also dedicated
to the Leftist goal of "terminating corporate protections [for their
private property] under the 14th amendment."
The Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and of the Fourteenth
Amendment extend their "protections" to the PRIVATE PROPERTY of
private individuals, even when that private property is held
within business "corporations." See Part 1 at
www.billstclair.com/ferran
The Due Process Clauses (of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) are the
primary obstacles to the Marxist ambitions of Democrats.com and other Leftists
to abolish the private property rights of landowners and of corporate
shareholders, and to expropriate corporately held private property.
Therefore, a Con-Man like L.B. Bork, who is dedicated to "terminating
corporate protections under the 14th amendment" is an Abettor of the
Marxist (Democrat.com) Agenda in the United States.
US Corporations hold the private wealth (property) of American citizens,
and therefore represent the "means of production" which Marxist Communists
desire to place under the control of the government. Thus, terminating
"
corporate protections" secured by the US Constitution is
the avowed ambition of
the "U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization"
http://www.usmlo.org/archive2003/2003-09/0736.htm
The very First Plank of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is: "Abolition
of property in land and application of all rents of land
to [government, not private] purposes." "American Communists,
Socialists and Liberals have worked very hard to force central planning on
farmers. They have been very successful through regulations aimed
at destroying the small independent family owned farm. Only the large
corporations have the capability, the man-power to research and obey all of the
millions of federal regulations." Therefore, all that the American
Communists, Socialists and Liberals need to do now in order to centralize
governmental control over private property (land) and the means of
agricultural production, is to "eliminat[e] the corporate protections
under the 14th amendment." Once they destroy the property
rights of persons (e.g., property held within corporations) that are now
secured by the Law Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, there
will be nothing to stand in the way of complete governmental expropriation of
Private Property and the application of all its
profits to government purposes. L.B. Bork has admitted that
he is dedicated to this final subversive step to
advance the objectives of the American Communists, Socialists and
Liberals.
Marxists have always paid particular attention to the expropriation of
private property in LAND, particularly land in Farms. I happen to be
Half-Ukrainian by Blood. My mother, born in this county, is full-blooded
Ukrainian. My mother Nadia (which means "Hope") always told me that the Ukraine
was known as the "breadbasket" of Europe, because of the productivity of its
privately managed farms. See "
Remembering
Ukraine's Unknown Holocaust" http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981213-UkraineHolocaust.html
("In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine. Stalin
determined to force Ukraine's millions of independent farmers - called `kulaks'-
into collectivized Soviet agriculture, and to crush Ukraine's growing spirit of
nationalism.") During the era of Soviet Communist Government-controlled
Farms in the Ukraine, they were rife with inefficiency and corruption. "The
Ukrainian economy was in shambles" But after the fall of the Communist regime,
the Ukrainian people are today struggling to restore the prosperity that private
property and private management of farm once provided them.
http://www.givehope.org/changed_hearts/nadia_transform.htm
and
http://www.usukraine.org/cpp/partners/part9912sp/results.html
In December 2001 the Farm Bureau and corporate landowners launched a
lawsuit suit against one of America's
many protectionist anti-capitalist township governments, with no
subtlety in the language of the complaint: "The Township does not have the
authority...to prohibit or regulate corporate ownership or operation of farmland
or farming operations... Giving preference to 'family' farmers and banning
'corporate' farming violates the PA and U.S. Constitutions in several respects,
including without limitation, equal protection, due process, taking without just
compensation, and rights guaranteed under the commerce clauses...The regulation
is unconstitutional [by force of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States]."
The Constitutional guarantee of Due Process of Law in the Fifth
Amendment (1791) had long been viewed as a limitation upon the kind of extreme
government "interference" with and control over private "property" which
the American Marxists now seek to assert over the "means of production" held in
private corporations, by abolishing the Constitutional Protection of that
Private Property.
"The dictionary definition of socialism is a system that calls for "public
ownership of the means of production." Public ownership can only mean State
ownership; there is simply no other practical way for this to occur. No one is
going to give up his right to ownership except by force and the only way force
can be brought to bear is by government, which is, by definition, legalized
force. Therefore both Nazism and Communism, in order to carry out their
respective agendas, require a forceful authoritarian government since to give up
property voluntarily is simply against human nature. You might say that both
systems are on the left, you may say that both systems are authoritarian, take
your pick. ... Socialism is very much like the old
Czarist system and all other Monarchal systems where the government, in the
person of the King, controls everything and is supposed to act in the interest
of "the people." Don't you see? Socialism is a regression back to the days of
absolute rule except instead of having a Monarch claiming divine right, you have
a "dictatorship of the proletariat" claiming to act in the name of science. For
centuries, people have been duped into surrendering their property and their
freedoms to the state and have become serfs."
http://www.chuckmorse.com/dialogue_with_a_leftist.html
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have stood as barriers against the
usurpation of Marxist-Socialist control over the private property of
individuals privately held and managed within corporations.
"The same [generous] construction which is required for the protection
of life and liberty, in all particulars in which life and liberty are of any
value, should be applied to the protection of private property. If the
legislature of a State, under pretence of providing for the public good, or for
any other reason, can determine, against the consent of the owner, the uses to
which private property shall be devoted, or the prices which the owner shall
receive for its uses, it can deprive him of the property as completely as by a
special act for its confiscation or destruction. ... There is
nothing in the character of the business of the defendants as warehousemen which
called for the interference complained of in this case. Their buildings are not
nuisances; their occupation of receiving and storing grain infringes upon no
rights of others, disturbs no neighborhood, infects not the air, and in no
respect prevents others from using and enjoying
their property as to
them may seem best. The legislation in question is nothing less than a
bold
assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the
property and business of the citizen, and fix the compensation he shall
receive. The will of the legislature is made the condition upon which the owner
shall receive the fruits of his property and the just reward of his labor,
industry, and enterprise.
'That government,' says Story, 'can scarcely be
deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon
the will of a legislative body without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of
a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and
private property should be held sacred.' Wilkeson v. Leland, 2 Pet.
657." Justice Field, dissenting.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=94&invol=113
"Corporations .--Although a corporation is the creation of a State, which
reserves the power to amend or repeal corporate charters, the retention of such
power will not support the taking of corporate property without due process of
law. Foreign (out-of-state) corporations also enjoy the protection which the due
process clause affords, but such protection does not entitle them to the
unconditional right to enter another State or, once having been permitted to
enter, to continue to do business therein. There is language in the early cases
suggesting that the power of a State to exclude or to expel a foreign
corporation is almost plenary."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/05.html#8
"The equal protection clause, which was also brought to bear on the
economic legislation of the states, was held to invalidate restraints on
corporations from which other businesses were exempted. In several early cases
this clause was used to foster individual economic rights, with the court
striking down state laws that prevented aliens from pursuing certain
occupations. ... The states, it was also held, might meet the requirements
of equal protection even if distinctions based upon “reasonable classifications”
were made. Thus, corporations, with their great potential power and size, might
reasonably be subjected to more severe restrictions than other types of business
organizations. While the states were given greater freedom in enacting economic
legislation, their power to limit personal liberties was brought under greater
restraint."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fo/Fourteenth.html
In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases the argument again was made that
confiscatory and unequal taxes violated a railroad’s property rights.
The argument was also made - for at least the third time before the Supreme
Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood’ status finally succeeded when the
report of the opinion in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. R.R. contained
a statement purportedly made by Chief Justice Waite before oral argument that
"[t]he court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the
provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State
to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,
applies to these corporations. We are all of the
opinion that it does.”
Individuals who choose (their Liberty) to pool their private Property
resources together in order to use synergy to create more than they
could accomplish individually managing their property, are not bound to do so
only by resort to cumbersome "partnerships." Thus, the private
"shareholders" who jointly own all the assets and means of production held in a
business corporation are entitled to appoint Boards to represent them in the
management of this private property. "The right of voting for
representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To
take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery...." -- Thomas
Paine PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSONS DO NOT LOOSE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE THEY
POOL THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY TOGETHER AND APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGE IT ON
THEIR BEHALF WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF A CORPORATION !!!
Constitutional Protections for
Corporations:
"Although a corporation is not a 'citizen' under the privileges
and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a
corporation may exercise some of the constitutional protections granted to
natural persons:
"Right to Due Process and Equal Protection: Corporations enjoy the
right to equal protection and due process of law under the Fourteenth and Fifth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under similar provisions of the
California Constitution.
"Freedom of Speech: Absent some narrowly drawn restrictions
serving compelling state interests, corporations have the right to express
themselves on matters of public importance whether or not those issues
"materially affect" corporate business.
"Right to Counsel: While a corporation cannot be imprisoned, a
criminal action can result in fines and other penalties that could harm
shareholders, officers, and other persons. Thus, a corporate criminal
defendant has a Sixth Amendment to a Right to Counsel. But note, because a
corporation faces no risk of incarceration, it has no right to appointed counsel
if it cannot afford to retain private counsel
"No Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Corporations have no
privilege against self-incrimination (e.g. to prevent disclosure of
incriminating corporate records)."
http://www.mycorporation.com/Corporation.htm
"Notwithstanding the historical controversy that has been waged concerning
whether the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word ''person'' to
mean only natural persons, or whether
the word was substituted for the word
''citizen'' with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state
legislation,
56 the Supreme Court, as early as the Granger Cases,
57 decided in 1877, upheld on the merits various state laws without
raising any question as to the status of railway corporation plaintiffs to
advance due process contentions.
There is no doubt that a corporation may
not be deprived of its property without due process of law..."
http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/18.html#4
"In Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota,
134
U.S. 418, 458 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 462, 702, it was said: 'If the
company is
deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for the use of its property,
and such deprivation takes place in the absence of an investigation by judicial
machinery, it is deprived of the lawful use of its property, and thus, in
substance and effect,
of the property itself, without due process of law,
and in
violation of the constitution of the United States; and, in so
far as it is thus deprived, while other persons are permitted to receive
reasonable profits upon their invested capital, the company is deprived of the
equal protection of the laws.' "
"In Reagan v. Trust Co.,
154
U.S. 362, 399 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 1047, [the US Supreme] court, after
referring to the above cases, said: 'These cases all support the proposition
that ... it is within the scope of judicial power, and a part of judicial duty,
to restrain anything which, in the form of a regulation of rates,
operates to deny to the owners of property invested in the business of
transportation that equal protection which is the constitutional right of all
owners of other property. There is nothing new or strange in this. It has
always been a part of the judicial function to determine
whether the act of
one party (whether that party be a single individual, an organized body, or the
public as a whole) operates to devest the other party of any rights of person or
property.
In every constitution is the guaranty against the taking of
private property for public purposes without just compensation. The equal
protection of the laws, which, by the fourteenth amendment, no state can deny to
the individual, forbids legislation, in whatever form it may be enacted, by
which the property of one individual is, without compensation, wrested from him
for the benefit of another, or of the public. This, as has been often
observed, is a government of law, and not a government of men, and it must never
be forgotten that under such a government, with its constitutional limitations
and guaranties, the forms of law and the machinery of government, with all their
reach and power, must, in their actual workings, stop on the hither side of the
unnecessary and uncompensated taking or destruction of any private property
legally acquired and legally held."
Thus, the US Constitution, particularly, the Fourteenth Amendment, stands
defiantly in the way of the Marxists (Democrats.com) who now seek to overthrow
private (e.g., "corporate") control of the "means of production" (e.g., land
and other private property) in America today. A
large proportion of farmed LAND in the united States today is
held and managed as private property by Family Partnerships, "Family
Corporations" and other business "corporations."
No wonder L.B. Bork is dedicated to "terminating corporate protections
under the 14th amendment."
A "Con-Man" Offers for Sale what He Cannot Deliver (e.g., Immunity from
Federal Income Tax through pretending to renounce birthright 'US citizen' status
while remaining in the US and enjoying its common defenses).
A "Traitor" makes his money by weakening his Country's common
defenses (e.g., Due Process of Law) against its' Enemies (Marxist
Democrats/Communists) foreign and domestic.
L.B. Bork is a Con-Man and a Traitor.
For further information about L.B. Bork's Deceit, Fraud, and
Treason please contact me at
mferran@nycap.rr.com
Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
My public "references":
"Mark Ferran is a prominent legal analyst and essayist."
http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Step07.txt
"Mark Ferran has written several good articles on the issue of the defense of
land ownership."
http://www.fear.org/opinion.html
"Mark Ferran has done good work on property rights."
http://www.constitution.org/cs_peopl.htm
"Landowner Mark Ferran wants ATV-riders to stay off his property. This week
Mark Ferran laid down the law. Specifically, he taped it up at Town Hall, the
local library and the general store."
Albany Times Union, STAKES RAISED IN ATV FIGHT, 05/23/2002
"Sign me up for the Mark Ferran fan club; the man is a hero."
Fred LeBrun, Albany Times Union Political Commentator
http://www.timesunion.com/archives/summarylist.asp?DBQUERY=Mark+Ferran++&DBLIST=al01&SORT=d%3Ah&NITEMS=25&qtype=q_string
Even some NY ATV-riders agree: "He's no dummy and he does have a BIG problem
with trespassers. I think our guy may be a fan of his. Ferrans' father, Rocco
Ferran, was a very respected local politician in the 70's in that county. Mr.
Ferran is not our enemy. He wants his rights protected, same as we want
ours."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21,
2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Frauds that L.B.
Bork perpetrates against US citizens -Rough Draft.
Mr. Bork: This is an outline of the Report I will be
publishing. This follow after giving you a full and fair opportunity to
respond to my charges and to be heard and to give complete explanations
in his defense. You may still comment at this time, if you think
there are any errors in my statements and conclusions.
[Mr. Bork: A "hearing" is where the accused is given an opportunity
to be "heard." And, you have been heard. You tried to attack me
in my associations. I responded. Now you say you want
to slander me with your nonsensical accusations. What you will
discover is that people with normal intelligence will reject what you are
saying as absurd and untrue, and view you as less credible than before.
Those who are completely your intellectual property, because they are
weak-minded, or for whatever reason they join cults such as yours, will accept
what you say without even understanding it. It is pathetic, and sad, but
that is what most of humanity is.]
[Mr. Bork: Whatever may be the condition or direction of this country, (I
note it is not your country), you are not helping anyone here but
yourself. You are not taking money to help people RESIST the
Marxists (Democrats), you are taking money to nutralize the Vote of natural
enemies of Marxists. For your information,
private business Corporations are Private Property of
individuals, and so a legal "benefit" or protection for "corporations" is a
detriment to "Communists" who want to place all means of production (e..,
corporate assets) into the government's hands. The
Marxists (Democrats) hate "corporations" just as you seem to. Since
when do non-marxists think that private business (corporations) are a bad thing
for society? Obviously, you are a Marxist sypathizer, if not a
pure Marxist in wolf's clothing.]
L.B. Bork is simply playing off of people's fears, of communism
and of corporations, when the two are natural enemies. That
is clever on his part, or maybe it is evidence that there are
"thousands" of people who are just too desparate and weak-minded to
understand the absurdities of what he is saying. Obviously,
if he has found "thousands" of people who hate their "country" (America) as
much as he does, then he probably have a few Marxist communists among
them, just laughing their asses off at how stupid the rest
of his paid "members" are for materially advance the cause of the
Marxist Democrats. How many dumb asses have paid for "membership"
in his treasonous cult? Probably a small fraction of those who
subscribe to his newsletter.
He asserts nonsensically that I am a "Communist" while I am the
strongest advocate and Defender of PRIVATE PROPERTY rights that has ever wasted
his time trying to educate Bork's victims. I did not see him at the
National Property Rights Conference I attended this weekend. I don't
see him doing anything for private property other than taking people's
money to sell them his flavor of Treason. Predators like him
are the ENEMY of Private Property, because they advocate the complete
destruction (not the improvement or reform) of the great American
institutions that were ordained by the American People to "SECURE" private
property.
Contrary to what Mr. Bork says, it does not state in the 14th Amendment (
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html)
that in general "
it is a crime to vote".
One wonders if he is even more illiterate than he is a
Traitor??? Section 2 states that: "when the right to vote at any election ... of a state... is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in
rebellion, or other crime, the [State's] basis of
representation [in the US House of Representatives] shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number
of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."
"The first section [of the Fourteenth Amendment] defines who is a
citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that
abridge certain rights of its citizens or persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States. This section contains the
due process and
equal protection
clauses and has had a notable impact on federal, state and local law in the
United States; including the
selective
prosecution defense. Prior to the
adoption of this amendment, the
United States
Bill of Rights so famously cherished by U.S. citizens acted only as a
restraint on
federal, not state, governments. Until that time states'
control over its citizens was legally restrained only by that state's
constitution and laws. Many of these states modeled their constitution and laws
after the federal government of the United States, but state constitutions did
not necessarily entail provisions like the Bill of Rights. With the adoption of
this amendment and this section in particular, southern states were legally
obligated to recognize certain rights of freed slaves. In response, southern
states drew up
Jim Crow and similar laws
to perpetuate racial discrimination in the south. The expansion of "fundamental
rights" under the Due Process clause was not anticipated by its sponsors. Yet
under this clause the
United
States Supreme Court has recognized such rights as the right to
abortion, the right to
contraceptives, the right
to
medical treatment, and the
right to
marry. The second section
[of the Fourteenth Amendment] establishes rules for the apportioning of
representatives in Congress to states, essentially making the proportion of that
state's representation equal to that state's proportion of the nation's
population excluding males under the age of 21, the disenfranchised, and Indians
who do not pay taxes. The third section [of the Fourteenth Amendment]
prevents the election of any person to the Congress or Electoral College who has
engaged in
insurrection,
rebellion, or
treason. A two-thirds vote by
Congress can override this limitation, however."
Thus, the "penalty" of Section Two is laid against a State
that DENIES to any "male inhabitants of such state [who are]
twenty-one
years of age, and citizens of the United
States." Thus, the 14h Amendment tends to SECURE the right
of male inhabitants of such state who are "citizens of the United States"
to Vote in STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, unless such
males participated "rebellion, or other
crime." Therefore, L.B. Bork is nothing but
a pathetic LIAR.
"[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is the primary guaranty for
individual rights and liberties through its protection of the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, its prohibition on the deprivation
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and its guaranty of
equal protection of the laws...." http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses125/hjr04-i-125.pdf
The subsequent sections of the Amendment was designed
to protect the Constitution from Subversion by Rebels, by restraining Traitors
against the Constitution from voting or holding office. If that is what
you mean by "crime", then yes, maybe it should be a crime for a traitor or
any intruder in my country (like you) to vote in American elections.
As a Non-American, you have no business voting in elections. http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/17112000/feature.htm
I agree that "terminating US
citizenship is a right." The point that L.B. Bork seems to
ignore is that once one terminates his US citizenship, he has no
Constitutional Right to be a State-Citizen, and has have no Constitutional
Right to Remain within any of the united States. If you are not a US
citizen, you are an Alien, and you can be deported. "Any alien who is
present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of
the United States is deportable." http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1227.html
It is
the right of an American Citizen to "flee" this country in order to escape
Income Tax, or any other condition. In 1981 Ronald
Reagan lowered taxes. The following year not a single American gave up his
citizenship. In 1993 the expatriate community grew by 306
names. "One in five Americans has
considered leaving America, three million Americans would do so right this
moment if they only knew how..." But, the American
People have declared it to be their right to recoup a "Tax" from those who
benefitted as adu
