Pierecing the corporate veil means that someone associated with the
corporation is trying to use the corporation to escape justice from
debts, torts or crimnal acts according, they can be board of
directors, management or stockholders, although I don't know of a
case I think they could be an average employee as well, pierecing the
corporate veil can go to the extent of dissolving the corporate
status and finding everyone associated with the corporation liable if
necessary.
Now i'm not sure about the fine points of this common law and
ststute doctrine or case history. BLacks law dictonary says it is
used against those trying to use the corporation to escape justice
but do they mean only strict knowledge of an act for liablity or
would they include money or other assets gained through injustice but
no knowledge of the act by the ones receiving the money or
assets.
For eample if John Doe had stock in X corporation that cause
billions of dollars of damages to third parties but John was so far
removed from the operation he did not know anything about the bad
acts I think he still might owe money beyound the value of his stock
if the debt is not fulfilled by those that knew which can even
include the floor sweeper and the average factory line worker, by the
orporations insurance and by the total assets of the corporations,
but since John did not know there should not be any punitive damages.
If the debt is not fufilled he might still owe the dividends, capital
gains and maybe interest and maybe wages if he had been an employee,
if the gains were made durning the time the corporation did the
misdeeds, the victims would be recovering their just property, stolen
property should be returned to the owner even if the holder of that
property did not steal
it.
Here in the US a lot of corporations declare babkrupcy, if not
all before it would get down to the above, for example some of the
asbestoes corporations. Still I am doubting if most state legistion
and courts these days will allow much pierecing the corporate veil
except maybe to go after a small business person trying to get out of
taxes are something although there might be a few exceptions but I
doubt more they would allow capital gains and dividends to be
attacked on the average stock holder or mutual fund owner, although
in some cases maybe they should.--- In [email protected],
Urmas Järve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What exactly is piercing the corporate veil? What do you mean by
unjust acts?
>
> In Estonia as a shareholder of a ltd I am responsible to the amount
of my share value in that company.
>
> If board members commit actions against the company or do not
follow the laws they can be prosecuted on civil(if against company)
and criminal(if against law) law.
>
> Best wishes,
> Urmas
>
> On 07/02/2006 02:09, terry12622000 wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it is Estonia but it might be but it is one of
the ex
> > soviet controled nations the government gives a lot more
limited
> > liablity protection to corporations registered in that
country. They
> > don't even allow Pierecing the corporate veil which is a
English/
> > American common law standard so that parties connected to a
> > corporation can not use the corporation to commit un just
acts.---
> > In [email protected], "terry12622000"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > A corporation is a business or non profit organaztion
that
> > registers
> > > with a state governments for the purposes of
incorporating,
> > > continuing the organaztion beyond the life of its
founding
> > > stockholders, other type owners or members, one of the
main
> > > advantages of a corporation which may be also shared by
registered
> > > limited liablity companies and registered limited
liablity
> > > partnerships is limited liablity spelled out in state
government
> > > corporate laws and Anglo/ American common law, third
party liablity
> > > can be a bonus but, natural law, common law and the 7th
amendment
> > in
> > > the bill of rights to the US consitution forbids using
corporate
> > > status to escape justice. The 7th amendment says In suits
at common
> > > law where the value of the controversy shall exceed 20
dollars, the
> > > right of trial by jury shall be perserved, and no fact
tried by a
> > > jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the
United
> > > States, than according to common law. Some states also
have similar
> > > clauses in their state constitution usually in the
declaration of
> > > rights section. Thus a state government can not grant
third party
> > > limited liablity outright but it can insure the
corporation or
> > Limted
> > > liablity company or limited liablity partnership. Nor
should the
> > > state demand any waiver against suing for third party
liablity to
> > > state residence in exchance for recieving benifits that
comes from
> > > state incorporation fees but private insuers should be
allowed to
> > ask
> > > for waivers in exchanging compensation for a waiver not
to
> > > sue.
> > > I would perfer it be a state tax or fee ( I would also
perfer
> > that
> > > the fee not be collected on at least the first 20 million
a year in
> > > revenue) and the federal government take its cut from
each state
> > > according to the population size of that state but the
current 16th
> > > amendment probably only applys to corporations and other
privildges
> > > thus an indirect tax not to individuals which would be a
direct tax
> > > which the constitution including the 16th amendment does
not allow
> > > except such as my stated perference of based on
population size.
> > No
> > > popularity should not be the base for the course of
action alone
> > and
> > > sure does not justify stealing or extortion but a 80% to
95%
> > > popularity of a revenue source is much more likely to
pass than say
> > a
> > > national sales tax or a flat rate tax plus when it is
actually a
> > user
> > > fee by choice it is not extortion, clearly if a business
or non
> > > profit is forced to incorprate by the state or federal
government
> > > that is exortion, if a corporation has a monoply that is
also
> > > extortion on the buyer but the answer to that is to end
forced
> > > incorporation and end the state backed monoply, in simlar
fashion
> > the
> > > federal government should not necessarily stop operating
a postal
> > > service but they should end the monoply, I think as long
as the
> > state
> > > government does incorpration services the residence of
the state
> > > should be compensated either through direct money and or
through
> > > services, one big compensation would be to end all taxes
on
> > > individuals and non corporations, they can end taxes and
fees on
> > > corportions as far as I'm concerned but i'm calling for
ending all
> > > taxes on individuals and non corprations first not off
corporations
> > > or dividend, interest or capital gains from corporations
first,
> > > unless a business is forced to be a corporation by the
government
> > > then it is ok to untax them first. Its best that all
taxes be
> > ended
> > > at the same time but if someone is exempt from taxes
first good for
> > > them they don't have to share my pain as long as they did
not help
> > > cause the pain.--- In [email protected], Urmas
Järve
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small
business?
> > > >
> > > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the
minority just
> > like
> > > the first proposed income tax what was ruled
unconstitutional.
> > > >
> > > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being in
place at that
> > > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it
was 2% and
> > > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who argued
it could
> > > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered absurd
and look
> > at
> > > where we are now.
> > > >
> > > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course of
action? Does
> > > popular justify stealing?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Urmas
> > > >
> > > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
[email protected], "terry12622000"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations
pay to many
> > > taxes, so
> > > > > ending
> > > > > > the tax on individuals and non
corporations ( which are
> > > mostly
> > > > > small
> > > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly
popular. It's
> > > basically the
> > > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In
> > > > > >
[email protected], "terry12622000" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not be
a tax in
> > most
> > > cases it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a user fee for the service of
incorporating, it
> > > would be a tax
> > > > > when
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or
when
> > individuals
> > > and groups
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > forced to deal with corporations.
Still ending all
> > > direct taxes
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and non
limited
> > > liablity businesses
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > nonprofits would put the political
class
> > > establishment to the
> > > > > test
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > > can it create enough value to sustain
itself)
> > while
> > > freeing up
> > > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions of
dollars for
> > > people to
> > > > > > > participate in alternative markets
and mutual
> > aid.--
> > > - In
> > > > > > > [email protected], "John
Stroebel"
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was
readying this
> > > post for a few
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > groups.
> > > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I got
over the
> > > federal gov't paying
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > agreed
> > > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance) to
the Ute
> > people
> > > for a contract
> > > > > > > (treaty)
> > > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some
folks really
> > got
> > > them panties in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > twist
> > > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted' for
THAT deal! ;-
> > )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little
charm....so why is it
> > > that, I wondered,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't cryin'
a river over
> > > an estimated 500
> > > > > > > BILLION
> > > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil'
occupations the
> > > government is
> > > > > > carrying
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > in our name?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ute easier pickins????
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL SWALLOWED
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still
wondering, what IS
> > this
> > > course we are
> > > > > > > staying???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The estimated costs for this
useless,
> > needless,
> > > obscene war of
> > > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and
Afghanistan by
> > > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I digress....this is an
excellent
> > article
> > > about three
> > > > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen
for....WMD,
> > > Zarqawi and Iraqi
> > > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of course
I meant bald
> > > faced lies. Bush's
> > > > > > > pants on
> > > > > > > > fire.)
> > > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan
& Iraq 2 top
> > > $500 BILLION in 2007
> > > > > > > Three
> > > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By Scott Ritter
> > > > > > > >
> > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 06/26/06
> > > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard
sometimes to know
> > > what is real and
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the
news out of
> > Iraq.
> > > America is in
> > > > > > > its "silly
> > > > > > > > season," the summer months
leading up to a
> > > national election,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > media is going full speed ahead
in exploiting
> > > its primacy in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > news
> > > > > > > > arena by substituting
responsible reporting
> > > with headline-
> > > > > grabbing
> > > > > > > > entertainment. So, as America
closes in on
> > > the end of June
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year of
our nation's
> > > birth, I thought
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > pen a short primer on three
myths on Iraq to
> > > keep an eye out
> > > > > for
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > "debate" the various issues
pertaining to our
> > > third year of war
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > country. The myth of
sovereignty Imagine
> > the
> > > president of the
> > > > > > > United
> > > > > > > > States flying to Russia, China,
England,
> > France
> > > or just about
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing at
an airport
> > on
> > > supposedly
> > > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > > territory, being driven under
heavy U.S.
> > > military protection
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with some
five minutes
> > > notification,
> > > > > > > summoning
> > > > > > > > the highest elected official of
that nation
> > to
> > > the U.S. Embassy
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > meeting. It would never happen,
unless of
> > > course the nation in
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty
continues to
> > > be hyped as a
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as
any fairy tale
> > > ever penned by the
> > > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the
talk of a free
> > > Iraq, the fact is
> > > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > > remains very much an occupied
nation where
> > the
> > > United States
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of
the willing")
> > > gets to call all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > shots.
> > > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made by
the United
> > > States. Its borders
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > controlled by the United States.
Its economy
> > is
> > > controlled
> > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > the United States. In fact,
there simply
> > isn't
> > > a single major
> > > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq
today that can
> > be
> > > said to be free
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > overwhelming American control.
Iraqi
> > ministers
> > > continue to be
> > > > > > shot
> > > > > > > at by
> > > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi
police are
> > > powerless to investigate
> > > > > > > criminal
> > > > > > > > activities carried out by
American troops (or
> > > their mercenary
> > > > > > > > counterparts, the so-
called "Private Military
> > > Contractors").
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > of this myth is that the
timeline for the
> > > departure of American
> > > > > > > troops
> > > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated (and
decided) in
> > > Washington, D.C.,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with
everything in
> > Iraq,
> > > the final vote
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq. But
these votes
> > > will be cast in
> > > > > > > bullets, not
> > > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with
them not only
> > the
> > > departure of
> > > > > > American
> > > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the
demise of any
> > > Iraqi government
> > > > > > > foolish
> > > > > > > > enough to align itself with a
nation that
> > > violates
> > > > > international
> > > > > > > law by
> > > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal
war of
> > > aggression, and continues
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal
(and equally
> > > illegitimate)
> > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have said
all along
> > that
> > > the poll figures
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly
against the
> > war
> > > in Iraq were
> > > > > > > illusory.
> > > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans
were against the
> > > war when we
> > > > > invaded
> > > > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over
60 percent not
> > > because there has
> > > > > > > been an
> > > > > > > > awakening of social conscience
and
> > > responsibility, but rather
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > things aren't going well in
Iraq, and there
> > is
> > > increasing angst
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > American heartland because we
seem to be
> > losing
> > > the war in
> > > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > > and no
> > > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the
word came that
> > > the notorious
> > > > > > > terrorist,
> > > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed
by American
> > > military action,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good
week," and
> > poll
> > > numbers adjusted
> > > > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > > in his favor. However, the
facts cannot be
> > > re-written, even
> > > > > by
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > slavish American mainstream
media. Zarqawi
> > was
> > > never anything
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a third-
rate
> > Jordanian
> > > criminal whose
> > > > > > > exploits
> > > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush
administration
> > anxious
> > > to prove that the
> > > > > > > > insurgency that was getting the
best of
> > America
> > > in Iraq was
> > > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to the
perpetrators
> > of
> > > the 9/11 terror
> > > > > > > attacks
> > > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of just
how wrong
> > such
> > > an assessment
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in
blood. Since
> > > Zarqawi's death, the
> > > > > > > violence
> > > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of
control in
> > Iraq,
> > > with Americans
> > > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis still
being
> > > slaughtered, and Zarqawi
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > organization, successor and all,
still as
> > > irrelevant to reality
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > ever.
> > > > > > > > The war against the American
occupation in
> > Iraq
> > > is being fought
> > > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The
insurgency is
> > > growing and becoming
> > > > > > > > stronger and more organized by
the day. This,
> > > of course, is a
> > > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > that the Bush administration
cannot afford to
> > > have the American
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > know about in an election year,
as a
> > compliant
> > > media, having
> > > > > sold
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of
the virtues of
> > > an invasion of
> > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to dance
with the
> > party
> > > that brought
> > > > > them
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > supporting the Republican
position, by and
> > > large, that the
> > > > > > conflict
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for
America. Good
> > > ratings, more dead
> > > > > > > Americans
> > > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is
counting?) and a war
> > > that will never
> > > > > end
> > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > the United States finally slinks
out,
> > defeated,
> > > its tail tucked
> > > > > > > firmly
> > > > > > > > between its legs. The myth of
WMD
> > Regardless
> > > of what Sen. Rick
> > > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic
neoconservative
> > fringe
> > > want to think,
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction have
been found
> > in
> > > Iraq. Citing a
> > > > > > > classified
> > > > > > > > Department of Defense report
that claims some
> > > 500 artillery
> > > > > > shells
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S.
forces since the
> > > invasion and
> > > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March
2003, Santorum
> > and
> > > his cronies in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > right-wing media have been
spouting nonsense
> > > about how Bush got
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD
in Iraq after
> > > all. He
> > > > > conveniently
> > > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > > to report that there is
nothing "secret"
> > about
> > > this data, it
> > > > > has
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > been reported before (by the
Bush
> > > administration, nonetheless),
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the shells in question
constitute old
> > artillery
> > > munitions
> > > > > > > manufactured
> > > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year of
the first
> > Gulf
> > > War, and a time
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > which the government of Saddam
Hussein
> > stated --
> > > correctly, it
> > > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > out that no WMD were produced
in Iraq). The
> > > degraded sarin
> > > > > > nerve
> > > > > > > agent
> > > > > > > > and mustard blister agent
contained in the
> > > discovered munitions
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > since lost their viability, and
as such
> > > represented no threat
> > > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the
haphazard way in
> > > which they were
> > > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the
ground, as
> > > opposed to carefully
> > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > away) only reinforces the Iraqi
government's
> > > past claims that
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > chemical munitions were
scattered about the
> > > desert countryside
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing
attacks on the
> > > ammunition storage
> > > > > > > depots
> > > > > > > > during the first Gulf War.
Having personally
> > > inspected scores
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch
for the
> > veracity
> > > of the past
> > > > > Iraqi
> > > > > > > > claims, as well as the absurdity
of the
> > claims
> > > made today by
> > > > > > > Santorum
> > > > > > > > and others, who continue to hold
personal
> > > political gain as
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > more than the blood of over
2,500 dead
> > > Americans. These three
> > > > > > > myths --
> > > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi
sovereignty -- are
> > what
> > > members of
> > > > > Congress
> > > > > > > > should be debating in their
halls of power,
> > the
> > > American media
> > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > discussing either in print or
across the
> > > airwaves, and that
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > should constitute the foundation
of a
> > movement
> > > towards
> > > > > > > accountability,
> > > > > > > > where the citizens of the United
States
> > finally
> > > point an
> > > > > > accusatory
> > > > > > > > finger at those whom they
elected to
> > represent
> > > them in higher
> > > > > > > office,
> > > > > > > > and who have failed in almost
every regard
> > when
> > > it comes to
> > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > then again, silly me for
thinking this way,
> > > believing that
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > was an
> > > > > > > > engaged constituency within
America that
> > knows
> > > and understands
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Constitution of the United
States and seeks
> > to
> > > live each day as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal
and values set
> > > forth by that
> > > > > > > document. I
> > > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth Myth --
that
> > American
> > > citizens are
> > > > > > > engaged in
> > > > > > > > our national debate. Scott
Ritter served
> > as
> > > chief U.N.
> > > > > weapons
> > > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991
until his
> > > resignation in 1998. He
> > > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > author of, most recently, "
Iraq
> > > Confidential: The Untold
> > > > > Story
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to
Undermine the U.N.
> > > and Overthrow
> > > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > > Hussein "
> > > > > > (Nation
> > > > > > > > Books, 2005
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this
message have been
> > > removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
