I went to wikipedea and had a look. I see terrible hypocacy in  the whole idea of "corporation". This is no intent to critisize anyone here, but if you go to wikipedia you'll encounter the term "legal fiction".  Now hold on here for a minute,. if that term is correct then we have absolutly nothing. If the court is operating (providing the "legal fiction " application is true), then how can a fiction be a fact. I'm into this because as my brainski automatically adds things together---something doesn't add up.

On one hand we have Personhood, which divides into two directions. 1- a corporation is a person. 2- a corporation is a "persons'. There's the problem, hypocacy. It can'rt be both unless it's a fiction--which typically menas it can be anything within what regulates it---which means any law made in it's regard can mean anything someone wants it to. It would have to be law that determines what is or isn't, and tha also means that law can be anything it needs to be to make "corporation" work. Which in turn means that a jimmy rigged law will lead to more hypocacy.

The supreme court has to define "what" a person is. If it doesn't ---we have nothing. Making laws will not settle the matter. Now--- as I went over this --it all goes way back to the early 1700s---why--because it's hypocritcal, and hypocacy can only be settled by fact, which in turn means that it wasn't based on fact but mere assumptions way back then. If it wern't hypocitical it would have been settled back in the early 1700s. As far as I know--there is no legal discription of "person" other then  it's an individual. That leaves alot of open territory, because if there were a legal interpretaion of "person" and it were true (not hypocritical) It would ruin the entire systems.

Persons and person cannot be the same entity. It looks as--the total body of persons that make up a corporation is a "person". That can't be--it's the same as one body having multiple brains. I'm not implying that corporation are bad or criminal minded etc. Legal fiction merely opens the way for more controversy as fact will always beat fiction---so the process will go on until---oh----lets say--the years 2525---by that time we won't be under the circumstance. Fiction cannot solve a problem and will produce any oither number of multiple fictions from any angle one wants to see something/anything.

Very simple. If the court has no, or gives no, guidance as to what a person is, then a tree can be a person---well hell--it's physical isn't it. And, if the court does--they have to be absolutly correct, no assumption and no mistake.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;

“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;

“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;

“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

Exactly which "privilege" are you talking about? What privilege does a corporation have that you don't?

All of which is against the law. A corporation can't simply move its money overseas to exempt it from bankruptcy.

 The idea that somehow Uber (or any other taxi company) would be better off declaring bankruptcy rather than settle a lawsuit is absurd.

Even if it somehow made sense in some kind of ridiculous situation, moving money for the purposes of hiding it from bankruptcy courts is a felony. Go ask your CPA how you would go about doing such a thing if you want to get a good laugh. 

 

Why didn't corporate personhood protect the others who were charged?

And you can't find a single attorney who would tell you otherwise. 

He could have been charged, for whatever reason the prosecutor opted not to.

You are wrong again. BECAUSE of corporate personhood, a President or CEO can be sued for harming it through fraud or negligence.

The President of the company isn't sitting in every location every day. He probably has never even met the driver.

If you are sitting over your employees every second they work, why the hell aren't you just doing the job yourself?

And what do you do when you have more than one employee and you can't be in two places to oversee them?

It is completely impractical to expect that any one person could be completely aware of everything happening within their company at every given moment.

It takes half a second to break a law, even prison guards are incapable of preventing crime from happening under their noses. 

When a corporation loses assets, their inventment becomes less valuable to anyone they might sell to. Additionally, if the corporation is dissolved and the assets themselves are sold, the owners of the corporation get any funds in excess of any debt split up among them. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why didn't corporate personhood protect the others who were charged?

Because there was evidence that they personally had direct responsibility. Corporate personhood shields the board and ceo from their indirect actions. If the ceo was the one who hadn't properly set the brakes then it would be a different story. But he didn't. He just created the environment where it was inevitable a disaster would happen. Which would have him facing charges if not for corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood does not grant immunity to anyone from criminal or civil prosecution. And you can't find a single attorney who would tell you otherwise.

Because the law was built on corporate personhood. Take it away and institute the responsibility as I previously mentioned and you would be the one who couldn't find an attorney who would agree with you.  

Old Seer wrote:

What I've lernt is, if we get sued and have to pay we can sell a truck and pay'em. But, they can't take my personal pet dually and RV trailer. Now I have to figure out how to hide all the assets.

Yes, that would be accurate. As I noted before, there are exceptions where you could be personally liable, but if you conduct your business honestly and legally, in general your personal assets will be protected except whatever cash or assets you use as collateral. Consulting a CPA in the state you incorporate just to make sure your financial structure and practices meets state standards is well worth the money. 

Then why is Menz facing murder charges?

At most, he is responsible for creating an environment where it was inevitable that a death would happen. 

Exactly, so attorneys agree with me that corporate personhood doesn't shield executives from liability under current law.