old-senate-rotunda-dc1The recent ruling by a black female judge that the prisoners we hold without trial and which we torture, are NOT ‘persons’ but are SUBHUMANS with VIRTUALLY NO HUMAN RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.  This ridiculous ruling by the daughter of sharecroppers is just too astonishing.  And we have to figure out who a ‘person’ is.  There actually is no set definition.  It includes organizations, cities and of course some entire nations but not ‘humans’ as a definition!


The Raw Story | Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not ‘persons’

64px-us-greatseal-obversesvgIn a suit brought by British men imprisoned for two years at Guantanamo, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today reaffirmed its previous ruling that Guantanamo detainees lack the fundamental constitutional right not to be tortured and are not “persons” under a U.S. statute protecting religious freedom. This is most disturbing on several Constitutional levels: it attacks the definition of who a ‘person’ is, reducing them to the level of SLAVES who were defined as non-persons.  And it denies religious freedoms to these humans who are now ‘slaves’.

Last summer, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision in Rasul v. Rumsfeld, in light of the High Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized the constitutional right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. The plaintiffs urged the Court of Appeals to follow the clear logic of the Boumediene decision and to recognize both the constitutional rights of the detainees to humane and just treatment and the fact that, under any definition of the word, they are “persons” entitled to religious freedom and dignity as required by law…. 

We are not talking about ‘citizens’ here.  Slaves, for example, can’t be citizens.  This is the definition of who is basically a human being in the eyes of the court.  Namely, are they people who are responsible for their acts when arrested but cease being humans when put on trial or worse, when suing the courts for justice?

In its decision today, the Court rejected the detainees’ argument that the Boumediene decision compelled the recognition of fundamental constitutional rights for detainees. Instead, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision applied only to the right of habeas corpus, and that no additional constitutional rights could be extended to detainees unless the Supreme Court specifically authorized and approved such rights. 

The denial of basic human rights is what happened to slaves in the past.  It is the dark side of US law that half of our laws and our Constitution endorses and embraces the dehumanization of slaves.

picture-47In addition, the Court reaffirmed its decision from last year that detainees are not “persons” for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 to protect against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices. Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown,a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court’s holding that detainees are not “persons” as “a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.”   Correct.  This statement is noticeably absent from Judge Brown’s substantively identical concurring opinion issued today. 

So, Judge Judy Jr, what changed since last year?  Did the new Change People in the Obama gang call and ask you to dehumanize the humans we are holding without trial and torturing without mercy?  Remember: the discharge of the CIA secret torture memos wasn’t due to Obama seeing the light.  It was due to the bravery of some lawyers who wrote that letter begging Obama to look at these memos and give them permission to quote from these things, IN COURT.


Obama’s Mossad agent running the White House, spurned this appeal.  But then, the CIA and Pentagon supporters within the Obama gang overshot their goal and made the news by threatening to jail these fine lawyers for daring to ask the President of the United States to read these obviously illegally written and totally unconstitutional memos that gave permission to a bunch of secret agents to break obvious INTERNATIONAL laws that were created with the Nüremberg Trials by US judges who were sent to Germany to punish the Nazis!


This is utterly disgusting.  How dare this woman who certainly isn’t a human but some sort of reptile, change the wording of her ruling so it removes the designation of ‘person’ from humans being illegally held and tortured by US KGB CIA clones????  The debasement of our own legal rights are tied into these events: if the CIA can kidnap and torture people and the Constitution doesn’t apply to these spooks then they can do it to anyone they choose including lawyers fighting this.


And the NYT is howling about Tibet being repressed???  The clash between myth and reality is an ongoing mess for the US.  For, from day one, with the Declaration of Independence, the hypocrisy and venality of our very Founding Fathers was on full cynical display to everyone.  Think people were proud of the US when we declared the basis of human rights was endowed by the very gods who created humans?  And then utterly denied any legal or social rights to slaves?  This still makes it nearly impossible for the US to be honest about human rights. 


Our wailing and weeping over Tibet is utterly fake.  It is done for one reason only: geopolitical purposes that have some very twisted aspects.  Namely, while screaming about Tibet, the very same people will endorse much worse being done to Palestinians.  So it is here: we attack China for torture and brutalization and abusing people seeking religious rights….and then out of our venal, corrupt courts comes this ruling!  Makes the Chinese communists snort with contempt.  So much for our fine ideals!


Thanks to first, serfdom and no concept of ‘citizenship’ which is a revolutionary concept, literally, thanks to feudalism and slavery, our laws have all sorts of linguistic quirks. For example, there is always a debate about who a ‘person’ is.  Thanks to this, courts long ago, decided that corporations are ‘persons’.  But NOT all humans!


Person legal definition of Person. Person synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizationspartnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcyor receivers.

A corporation is a “person” for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.

Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are “persons” entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).

Illegitimate children are “persons” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

They had to amend the Constitution much later in order to give civil rights to orphans and children born out of wedlock!  Isn’t this horrible?  I’m glad hearts were moved to do this.  But this amendment was mostly done in order to fix the immense hole in the original Constitution that made slaves 3/5th a vote while also making them 0% human!

This amendment came only after a very violent Civil War.  

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Judge Janice decided to deny personhood from obvious humans because she was told, we must do this to protect America.  This is just so….disgustingly sad.  I am speechless.


PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. 

     2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164. 
     3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178. 
     4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25. 
     5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man. 
     6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons. 
     7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth. 
     8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

Despite obvious humanist interpretations of the obvious meaning of ‘person’, the Courts have a long memory of a very odious past so it is possible to evade doing the right thing.  This is what all those creepy people who said, we have to interpret the Constitution the same way our Founding Slave-owning Fathers saw things….this is PURE RACISM and PURE NAZIISM.


Nazis like to differentiate between who is a real human and who are subhumans.  Anyone who does this in view of denying civil rights and privileges of citizenship to various religions or groups is practicing Naziism.  I said long ago, if Israel goes Nazi, so will the US.  We are always just one tiny step away from slavery and repression.  This is thanks to it being embedded inside of both our culture and our laws.  Here is an example from a law forum where one writer thinks it is impossible to deny ‘person’ status to a real human:


From 2005:  Eldon Warman’s Definition of “Person” Unmasked

Warman’s detax program is based on the claim that human beings are not persons for purposes of law. Thus, any definition of “person” as a human being, whether found in “judicially accepted law dictionaries” or in common English dictionaries to which most of us have easy access, must be discredited by Warman if his detax program is to be sustained.

In Lesson #1 of his detax program, Warman attempts to discredit dictionary definitions of “person” by stating, “In researching the definition of ‘person’ is [sic] a dictionary, one finds (usually #1 definition) the vague term ‘human being’. However, that term is found in no law dictionary.” This is factually false.

Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) defines “person” as:

1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.



Warman’s ad hoc definition of “person” corresponds in a general sense to Black’s definition of “artificial person”. However, Warman claims that this is the only correct legal definition of “person”, which, as you have seen, is factually false. He specifically rejects the definition of “person” as a human being, which corresponds to Black’s definition of “natural person”.

It is now clear that Warman’s statement in Message-ID: <ZgeR6.6104$> regarding the use in his detax program of “legal definitions obrtained [sic] from judicially accepted law dictionaries” is factually false. It is also clear that Warman’s claim that his ad hoc definition of “person” found in Lesson #1 of his detax program is the only legally correct definition of that word is factually false.

In light of these factual falsehoods, the only way Warman’s detax program can be sustained is if you can somehow manage to convince yourself that the definition of “person” found in every single English law dictionary in the world and every single common or popular English dictionary in the world is inaccurate, and that Eldon Warman is the only person in the history of the world to have figured out what the word “person” really means. I, however, believe that if you examine the evidence, you will find that the definitions of “person” found in both “judicially accepted law dictionaries” and common or popular English dictionaries are indeed accurate, that it is Warman’s ad hoc definition of “person” that is false, and that therefore his detax program cannot be sustained.


Alas, this writer is the one who is factually false for the definition of ‘person’ is NOT a human being via biology.  It is whoever the Courts want to consider ‘human’ and this is SEVERELY LIMITED.  With this ruling, we can see how we lost our collective souls.  And frankly, after that frightened phone call before dawn from a reader who simply wanted to see why a bunch of limos were sneaking into the campus at a weird hour….I don’t know if he is in jail now because he hasn’t emailed me yet.  I will try to reach him later, if I can.


Our civil rights vanish the instant  it is removed from someone else.  We are all in the same non-person/non-citizen matrix.


The Raw Story | CIA ordered to turn over documents relating to destroyed interrogation tapes

The Central Intelligence Agency must turn over records regarding detainee interrogation tapes the agency destroyed in an alleged effort to protect the identity of its officers.

ARREST THEM ALL.  Put them in jail with the AIPAC spies.

A federal judge rejected the CIA’s attempt to withhold records relating to the agency’s destruction of 92 videotapes that depicted interrogation of CIA prisoners in a ruling Friday afternoon. The tapes were said to have shown some detainees’ torture. 

The one thing the founders of the CIA learned from WWII was, to not do what the Nazis did and keep records.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing for the documents’ release under the Freedom of Information Act, and aims to have the agency held in contempt of court for refusing to provide them.

The ACLU has been remarkably successful at obtaining previously secret government documents. President Barack Obama was recently forced to release Bush administration memos which outlined torture techniques to be employed on detainees.

ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh lauded the court’s decision.

“We welcome the court’s recognition that the ACLU’s contempt motion against the CIA must be promptly resolved,” Singh said in a release. “Recent disclosures about the CIA’s torture methods further confirm that there is no basis for the agency to continue to withhold records relating to the content of the destroyed videotapes or documents that shed light upon who authorized their destruction and why. 

Thank you, ACLU.  Obama can’t wipe this off the slate of History.  The Fates weave our past with the present and then, create the future from it.  Since all of this is the warp and woof of our History, we must deal with these threads.  We can’t snip them off and start over, leaving huge holes.  We have to grapple with the past in order to AVOID THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.  It is this simple.


And we hung Nazis for this stuff.  We must put everyone on trial and I want a trial of these PERSONS who are trying to turn humans into NON-PERSONS.  This is utterly vital.  We have to impeach judges who believe that humans are not persons.  We have to re-affirm the principals of the Nüremberg Trials and put our LEADERS on trial for war crimes.  Arrest Bush and Cheney!


Police caught on tape trying to recruit Plane Stupid protester as spy | UK news |


Undercover police are running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations who secretly feed them intelligence in return for cash, according to evidence handed to the Guardian.

They claim to have infiltrated a number of environmental groups and said they are receiving information about leaders, tactics and plans of future demonstrations.

The dramatic disclosures are revealed in almost three hours of secretly recorded discussions between covert officers claiming to be from Strathclyde police, and an activist from the protest group Plane Stupid, whom the officers attempted to recruit as a paid spy after she had been released on bail following a demonstration at Aberdeen airport last month.

Matilda Gifford, 24, said she recorded the meetings in an attempt to expose how police seek to disrupt the legitimate activities of climate change activists. She met the officers twice; they said they were a detective constable and his assistant. During the taped discussions, the officers:



CLICK HERE TO SEE THE GUARDIAN’S VIDEO OF THE  RIOTS WHEN THE G20 MET IN LONDON!   G20 protests: ‘I don’t know who is being protected here’ | World news |


And the hounding of citizens and persons who are human and who are defying INTERNATIONAL powers from taking away our civil and human rights….this is what our governments are doing: eroding our personal powers.  Turning persons into serfs and then, slaves.  Enslave one, you enslave all.  The US Southerners still, to this day, have intense trouble figuring this out.


For example, I once had a guy tell me, he loved slavery and was sad, it was now gone.  I agreed.  I said, ‘I need a slave.  I do too much work, myself.  You are now my slave.  If you don’t do as I say, I will beat you.’  I didn’t pull a gun by he knew, I am a good shot and fast with a whip, too.


As my Mastiff perked up her ears as I pointed at this guy, he realized, I was serious.  I truly believe that all humans who believe in slavery should be reduced to slaves.  So he called me names and snarled and ran away.  The coward.  Couldn’t put his own dreams to work and make them real!  Talk about stupid.


And this is why we have to stop this sort of thinking!  Slavery is evil.  The religious believers in Tibet were reduced to slavery and serfdom.  Now, they have ennobled it like the US Southern white slave believers.  In this romantic haze, past evils are turned into glorious happiness.  This is human nature.


But courts are supposed to be rational.  This is why the recent ruling about who is a person, is so utterly, totally evil and frankly, UNCONSTITUTIONAL in view of the 14th Amendment. Janice Rogers Brown – is a black woman who was appointed by Bush in 2003 because she is willing to betray all of her own history, to service Powerful International Elites.


Born in Greenville, Alabama, Brown is an Alabama sharecropper’s daughter who attendedsegregated majority African American schools as a child. Her family refused to enter places of business that segregated blacks.[1] She earned her B.A. from California State University, Sacramento in 1974 and her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the UCLA School of Law in 1977. She worked her own way through law school while being a single mother. In addition, she received an LL.M. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2004.

Brown has said that when she was young, she was so liberal in her politics that she was almostMaoist, although she is now conservative.[1]


She wanted to become one of the Slave Owners.  And so she is yielding to the powers that control our fates.  Instead of fighting the good fight, she battles for tyranny.  This is not all that uncommon in history: slaves lusting for the powers of Massa.





P.O. BOX 483

BERLIN, NY 12022

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’




1 Comment

Filed under politics


  1. Pingback: HUMANS ARE NOT PERSONS ACCORDING TO US COURT « Culture of Life News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s