Dear all, I wish to apologize for not getting back to some of you due to not even having seen your mesage(s) until the past week(s) I've been doing BDNow *digest*-reading catching up -- was unable for months to keep up on my digest reading due to being out of state for long periods due to trips connected with mom's illness and then death, many life changes of my own.
Also, a few weeks ago in retrieving some material on a computer that broke down (involving more delay to locate a cheap "new" (used) one), I found to my dismay that I'd not replied to posts from several kind souls from even further back (e.g., re: MCS and [Kolisko's/Steiner's] Smallest Entities). I hope to rectify this as soon as I can, and can only plead brainfog from the clouds of fabric softener wafting through my windows from my neighbors daily then. The lady I coresponded with in the below "forward" is on a MCS-CI (multple chem sensitivity-chemical injury) list I'm on and was writing to that list with an article about the legal status as persons of corps at around the same time (I believe) as Merla posted the Thom Hartmann column to BDNow explaining how this personhood status ever developed (thank you, Merla). It makes a good bookend, I think. Take care, -Lily ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject : > Re: permission requested to forward one of your MCS-Hope posts > > Date : > Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:22:08 -0500 > > Dear Laurie, > > Thank you for your permission to send your post to my biodynamics gardening > (BDNow) group. Since you would like to know more about that list, here is > an > URL to the archives: > http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/ > > Coincidentally, soon after I wrote my below letter to you in which I noted > that > these archives' Internet accessibility has implications (I believe) for any > "delegitimation-of-corps-as-legal-'persons'" movement, I found in the > process of > catching up on my reading on the BDNow list, that the listowner has recently > been considering making the archives a member-password protected resource, > so I > hope you can access them. In any case, shall I perhaps, in forwarding your > post > to the list, indicate that you would like to receive info from the listowner > on > how to become a member? > > Yes, I agree with you re: root cause, on the "political" economic and social > levels. The personal, individual root causes (why IS there the thrust for > wealth-at-ANY-cost-to-peoples-and/or-the-environment, by the top honchos in > the > scheme that is enabled by "corporate legal personhood", and their individual > enablers in the corporate-political culture--those who work for corps > whether in > Congress or in the corps themselves) is, I think, the fundamental level that > will have to be addressed asap if we have any chance to halt the downward > global > spiral. Eugene Gendlin's book Focusing holds a key to this I believe. > > Looking forward ... > -Lily > > In a message dated 1/17/2003 8:36:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > >HI Llily > > > >My email's been down this week & I'm giving what's just come back inn a > >quick > >once-over. Yes, you can share the email I sent to Hope re legal corporate > >"personhood." Was excited that it meant something to you, as it got just > >one > >response from someone when posted, & I thought It would be of more > >interest. > It > >seemed to me to be a real root cause of some of the things that are way off > >kilter in our society. > > > >Will look forward to reading what you've sent. Later > >Laurie > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Dear Laurie, > > > > > > I just read your below post from the MCS-Hope list (of which I am a > >member) > > > appearing in the 11/26/02 digest (yes, I am VERY behind on my readings). > > > > > > I am also on a biodynamic gardening list on which the subject of the > >effect > > > of corporate "personhood" legal status upon our democracy, food supply, > etc., > > > has come up. > > > > > > I think your post contains valuable info that the list would welcome. Do > >I > > > have your permission to forward it there, as presented below? > > > > > > In fact, a recent post on that gardening list gave some crucial (I > >believe) > > > information that I had not seen before, regarding the origin of this > >"legal > > > status". Because that list is archived to the Internet (as MCS-Hope is > >not, > > > I believe?), I have not had to ask permission to forward it to you > >(corect > me > > > if I'm wrong), below. This archive status also has implications for > >anyone > > > who wants to keep a "low profile" in relation to the > > > delegitimation-of-corps-as-"persons" movement (sorry for that awkward > > > phrasing, I hope it did not make my intent too obscure). > > > > > > Of course, whether something is archived or not will not long determine > > > whether it can be read/accessed by non-list members. In an age of > >increasing > > > control/access by power-wielders (mega-wealth holders) through their > > > political puppets to the Internet (justification: "terrrsm") this makes > >it > > > easy for them, should a truly democratic movement to remove legal > >personhood > > > status from corps get traction and hence threaten their growing > >hegemony, > not > > > only to easily monitor what we are sending/building by email/discussion > lists ...but also to prosecute anyone they choose as > > > being a "terrst" who challenges the status quo (viz. e.g., Seattle and > >G8 > > > brutalities/arrests). > > > > > > I hope you find the article I'm sending you as enlightening as I think > >it is > > > (I realize you may likely already have seen it) and I look forward to > hearing > > > back with you about permissino to forwardy your post to the biodynamic > >list. > > > Take care, > > > -Lily > > > > > > -------proposed forward------- > > > << From: Laurie Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: corporate "personhood" > > > > > > Hello Hope, > > > > > > Just read an article in my local alternative newspaper which might make > >good > > > required reading for folks like us fighting chemical contamination of > >our > > > lives. The editor of this weekly has been promising he'll be publishing > > > information from an orlganization called "bioneers". The weekly's first > >such > > > article is by Dave Henson, entitled Corporate Control of Our Food and > >Lives > > > > > > In it, Mr Henson makes perceptive obeservations about how corporations > >now > > > have more rights than people. Through the courts, rather than through > > > legislation, corporations have achieved first amendment rights intended > >to > > > safeguard individuals from unreasonable intrusion by the state. From > >this > > > they have succeeded in limiting regulatory inspection of conditions in > >their > > > industries, as well as gaining free speech protection to overturn public > > > initiayives/legislation with the aim of controlling information on > >public > > > airwaves. They have also, as we in America have just experienced at > >lenghth, > > > won court rulings equatiing their financial contributions in political > > > campaigns with free speech. As Henson succinctly puts it, "Once > > > corporations acquried personhood status, Philip Morris Corporation and > >your > > > grandmother are both treated as people, w/ the same constitutionally > > > protected rights". > > > > > > Henson goes on to point out that while people pass on at which point > >their > > > wealth is subject to taxation, corporations receive charters to "live > > > forever". They also receive extensive limited liability rights,meaniing > that > > > it is impossible to criminally punish individual corporate managers for > >far > > > worse crimes than indiviual persons are often incarcerated for. Henson > > > provides an example: "If a real person steals a motorcycle for his > >third > > > felony, California mandates a sentence f 25 years to life in prison. > >But if > > > UNOCAL Corporation is convicted for the 15th time of breaking the law > >(as it > > > has been) it suffers a very small fine and goes on with business as > > > usual." > > > > > > The thesis here is that it is these illogical "personhood " rights that > > > corporations have won through litigation that is screwiing societal > >power > > > structures up. Henson points out that corporations have even tilted the > > > struggle on issues like GMOed food to just a small part of what is > >really > at > > > stake---i.e. e.g, in the struggle with corporations over having GMO > > > labelling on food that includes such, we have already capitulated, > >without > > > viable public referendum of this huge and dangerus change in the nature > >of > > > our food supply, WHETHER ot not they will be allowed to do this to our > >food, > > > the basis of life. Corporations have already mucked this up, probably > >for > > > good.... > > > > > > So in some ways, we're fighting our battles wrong, and this seems like > > > something folks like ourselves need to be aware of. HEnson makes > suggestions > > > about what we can do: there are some strategies already being used, > >like > 1) > > > fighting fires---i.e., the challenges environmental groups take up to > > > preserve life forms and check environmental damages and 2) creating > > > ecological, economic and cultural sustainable alternatives. But Henson > >also > > > suggests that a new strategy that has just begun in the court arena is > going > > > to be the real tool, because the first 2 are just "mopping up", leaving > >the > > > corporate structures to simply move on to intrusions elsewhere. The > strategy > > > is to challenge "by what authority" corporations have license to causee > > > environmental damage, or decide to create inalterable biological change > >in > > > organisms. If a coproation is found guilty of going beyond it's > >authority > in > > > these ways, a legal remedy is to revoke the corporation's charter. > > > > > > This seems also like somewthing MCSers can take a part in, and we > >certainly > > > have a voice that needs to be heard here: BY WHAT AUTHORITY do the > >makers > of > > > synthetic & chemical compounds have any right to cause impairment of the > > > health & pusluit of happiness and livlihood of indivuals affected by > >their > > > pollution & their products? Henson's suggestions on strategies to > > > dismablte the mechanisms of corporate rule are detailed and to the > >point. > Not > > > being much of a political orlganiizer myself, I';d love to pass this > >list > on > > > to others among Hope who are more so inclined---this paticvular email > >has > > > gottne long enough. Or you can go to a couple of websites or the book > > > mentioned above for his specific strategy suggestions for the long & > arduous > > > task it will be for people inclined to planetary sustainability to > >dismantle > > > inapproporaite corporate power. > > > > > > Suggested websites: dave henson's organization, Occidental Arts & > >Ecology > > > Center at www.oaec.org; the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy, > > > credited with being seminal in these ideas about corporate power > >structures, > > > at www.poclad.org, which has a publication called By What Authority, > > > available at the website. > > > > > > In peace!! > > > ZLaurie > > > The article is an edited version of a chapter from his book called Fatal > > > HSarvest: the tragedyt of industrial agriculture. > > > > > > -------end of proposed forward------- > > > --- > > > ---Forward:--- > > > I just got this from Mark Ritchie at WTO Watch and it's so good and to > >the > > > point of many of the problems in the US that I am copying it and sending > >it. > > > > > > Merla > > > > > > * * * * * * > > > > > > Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie" > > > by Thom Hartmann > > > > > > published on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 > > > by CommonDreams.org > > > > > > While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people > > > that > > > it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an > > > alert > > > consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught > > > them > > > in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a > > > California > > > law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in > > > their > > > commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation. > > > > > > Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't > > > lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy > > > > > > the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens > > > have > > > in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected > > > right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," > > > > > > then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to > > > > > > say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns. > > > > > > They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, > > > where > > > they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January, > > > > > > and the battle lines are already forming. > > > > > > For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's > > > position, > > > Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you disagree > > > with > > > get to have their say." > > > > > > True enough. > > > > > > But Nike isn't a person - it's a corporation. And it's not their "say" > > > they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people. > > > > > > Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money. > > > As > > > Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, > > > "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are > > > socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..." > > > > > > Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no > > > > > > pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or > > > healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in > > > prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change > > > their > > > citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely > > > new > > > entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are > > > human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their > > > assigned tasks forever. > > > > > > Isaac Asimov, when considering a world where robots had become as > > > functional, intelligent, and more powerful than their human creators, > > > posited three fundamental laws that would determine the behavior of such > > > > > > potentially dangerous human-made creations. His Three Laws of Robotics > > > stipulated that non-living human creations must obey humans yet never > > > behave in a way that would harm humans. > > > > > > Asimov's thinking wasn't altogether original: Thomas Jefferson and James > > > > > > Madison beat him to it by about 200 years. > > > > > > Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution > > > that > > > would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations > > > to > > > own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or > > > > > > trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a > > > single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to > > > something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years > > > back > > > then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations > > > were > > > created be "to serve the public good." > > > > > > The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary: > > > Virtually > > > all states already had such laws on the books from the founding of this > > > nation until the Age of the Robber Barons. > > > > > > Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing > > > business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or > > > agree > > > to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free > > > service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political > > > party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose > > > whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, > > > or > > > to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, > > > appointment or election to any political office." The penalty for any > > > corporate official violating that law and getting cozy with politicians > > > on > > > behalf of a corporation was five years in prison and a substantial fine. > > > > > > Like Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, these laws prevented corporations > > > from harming humans, while still allowing people to create their robots > > > (corporations) and use them to make money. Everybody won. Prior to 1886, > > > > > > corporations were referred to in US law as "artificial persons," similar > > > to > > > the way Star Trek portrays the human-looking robot named Data. > > > > > > But after the Civil War, things began to change. In the last year of the > > > > > > war, on November 21, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln looked back on the > > > growing power of the war-enriched corporations, and wrote the following > > > thoughtful letter to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins: > > > > > > "We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. > > > It > > > has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the > > > flower > > > of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that > > > the > > > nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; > > > but I > > > see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes > > > me > > > to tremble for the safety of my country. > > > > > > "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of > > > corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the > > > country > > > will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the > > > > > > people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is > > > > > > destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in > > > the > > > midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." > > > > > > Lincoln's suspicions were prescient. In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. > > > Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the > > > state > > > tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the > > > taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way. > > > > > > However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no > > > precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president > > > named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The > > > defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in > > > section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United > > > States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its > > > jurisdiction > > > the equal protection of the laws." > > > > > > Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from > > > Chief > > > Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National > > > Archives > > > said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." > > > And > > > nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are > > > persons. > > > > > > Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's > > > headnote > > > and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself, in a > > > > > > stunning display of either laziness (not reading the actual case) or > > > deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion or > > > having > > > open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent > > > cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, > > > once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new > > > doctrine > > > of corporate personhood became the law. > > > > > > Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human > > > rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own opinions > > > - > > > were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations, being artificial > > > > > > creations of the states, didn't have rights, but instead had privileges. > > > > > > The state in which a corporation was incorporated determined those > > > privileges and how they could be used. And the same, of course, was true > > > > > > for other forms of "legally enacted game playing" such as unions, > > > churches, > > > unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and even governments, all of > > > which > > > have only privileges. > > > > > > But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations > > > out > > > of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the others (unions, > > > governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don't have > > > "rights") > > > - and moved them into the "rights" category with humans, citing the 14th > > > > > > Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War to grant the > > > human > > > right of equal protection under the law to newly-freed slaves. > > > > > > On December 3, 1888, President Grover Cleveland delivered his annual > > > address to Congress. Apparently the President had taken notice of the > > > Santa > > > Clara County Supreme Court headnote, its politics, and its consequences, > > > > > > for he said in his speech to the nation, delivered before a joint > > > session > > > of Congress: "As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we > > > discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while > > > the > > > citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an > > > > > > iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained > > > creatures > > > of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the > > > people's > > > masters." > > > > > > Which brings us to today. > > > > > > In the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not > > > to > > > hear Nike's appeal of the California Supreme Court's decision that Nike > > > was > > > engaging in commercial speech which the state can regulate under truth > > > in > > > advertising and other laws. And lawyers for Nike are preparing to claim > > > before the Supreme Court that, as a "person," this multinational > > > corporation has a constitutional free-speech right to deceive. > > > > > > The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon/Mobil, Monsanto, Microsoft, Pfizer, > > > and > > > Bank of America have already filed amicus briefs supporting Nike. > > > Additionally, virtually all of the nation's largest corporate-owned > > > newspapers have recently editorialized in favor of Nike and given > > > virtually > > > no coverage or even printed letters to the editor asserting the humans' > > > side of the case. > > > > > > On the side of "only humans have human rights" is the lone human > > > activist > > > in California - Marc Kasky - who brought the original complaint against > > > Nike. > > > > > > People of all political persuasions who are concerned about democracy > > > and > > > human rights are encouraging other humans to contact the ACLU > > > (< TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm>" > TARGET="_blank"> TITLE="http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm> or 125 Broad > Street, > 18th > > > Floor, New York, NY 10004) and ask them to join Kasky in asserting that > > > only living, breathing humans have human rights. Organizations like > > > Reclaim > > > Democracy! < TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org>" > TARGET="_blank"> TITLE="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org> are documenting the case in > > > > > > detail on the web with a sign-on letter > > > < > TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/aclu_sign_on_letter.html>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/aclu_sign_on_letter.html>" > TARGET="_blank"> >TITLE="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/aclu_sign_on_letter.html>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/aclu_sign_on_letter.html>, > > > in > > > an effort to bring the ACLU and other groups in on behalf of Kasky. > > > > > > Corporate America is rising up, and, unlike you and me, when large > > > corporations "speak" they can use a billion-dollar bullhorn. At this > > > moment, the only thing standing between their complete takeover of > > > public > > > opinion or their being brought back under the rule of law is the U.S. > > > Supreme Court. > > > > > > And, interestingly, the Chief Justice of the current Court may side with > > > > > > humans, proving this is an issue that is neither conservative or > > > progressive, but rather one that has to do with democracy versus > > > corporate > > > plutocracy. > > > > > > In the 1978 Boston v. Bellotti decision, the Court agreed, by a one vote > > > > > > majority, that corporations were "persons" and thus entitled to the free > > > > > > speech right to give huge quantities of money to political causes. Chief > > > > > > Justice Rehnquist, believing this to be an error, argued that > > > corporations > > > should be restrained from political activity and wrote the dissent. > > > > > > He started out his dissent by pointing to the 1886 Santa Clara headnote > > > and > > > implicitly criticizing its interpretation over the years, saying, "This > > > Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, > > > that > > > a business corporation is a 'person' entitled to the protection of the > > > Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County > > > v. > > > Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886). ..." > > > > > > Then he went all the way back to the time of James Monroe's presidency > > > to > > > re-describe how the Founders and the Supreme Court's then-Chief Justice > > > John Marshall, a strong Federalist appointed by outgoing President John > > > Adams in 1800, viewed corporations. Rehnquist wrote: > > > > > > "Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status > > > of a > > > corporation in the eyes of federal law: > > > > > > "'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and > > > existing > > > only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it > > > possesses > > > only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, > > > either > > > expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are > > > > > > supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was > > > created.'..." > > > > > > Rehnquist concluded his dissent by asserting that it was entirely > > > correct > > > that states have the power to limit a corporation's ability to spend > > > money > > > to influence elections (after all, they can't vote - what are they doing > > > in > > > politics?), saying: > > > > > > "The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the > > > [Massachusetts] Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of > > > business > > > corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural > > > persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the > > > Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity." > > > > > > Justices true to the Constitution and the Founders' intent may wake up > > > to > > > the havoc wrought on the American political landscape by the Bellotti > > > case > > > and its reliance on the flawed Santa Clara headnote. If the Court > > > chooses > > > in the next few weeks to hear the Kasky v. Nike case, it will open an > > > opportunity for them to rule that corporations don't have the free > > > speech > > > right to knowingly deceive the public. It's even possible that this case > > > > > > could cause the Court to revisit the error of Davis's 1886 headnote, and > > > > > > begin the process of dismantling the flawed and unconstitutional > > > doctrine > > > of corporate personhood. > > > > > > As humans concerned with the future of human rights in a democratic > > > republic, it's vital that we now speak up, spread the word, and > > > encourage > > > the ACLU and other pro-democracy groups to help Marc Kasky in his battle > > > on > > > our species' collective behalf. > > > > > > Thom Hartmann is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise of > > > Corporate > > > Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights" > > > < TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.unequalprotection.com>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.unequalprotection.com>" > TARGET="_blank"> TITLE="http://www.unequalprotection.com>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.unequalprotection.com>. This article is copyright > by > Thom > > > Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web > > > media so long as this credit is attached. > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > > > Additional note from Paul Cienfuegos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > > I also encourage readers to visit the following website for additional > > > information on the growing movement to abolish corporate personhood: > > > < TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.wilpf.org/corp/cintro.htm>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.wilpf.org/corp/cintro.htm>" > TARGET="_blank"> TITLE="http://www.wilpf.org/corp/cintro.htm>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.wilpf.org/corp/cintro.htm>. > > > > > > Also, Thom's book can be ordered for $26.95 (plus shipping) via my > > > online > > > bookstore: < TITLE=" TITLE="http://www.100fires.com>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.100fires.com>" > TARGET="_blank"> TITLE="http://www.100fires.com>" >TARGET="_blank">http://www.100fires.com> - "Extraordinary Books for a > > > Healthy > > > Planet" with 2000 titles and climbing fast. > > > > > > Lastly, Democracy Unlimited stocks one of the nation's largest > > > selections > > > of books, articles, information packets and tapes on the key topics > > > relating to this growing movement. For a copy of our new Resource List, > > > please send a SASE to Democracy Unlimited, POB 610, Eureka, CA 95502 > > > USA. > > > ---end of forward---
