We are excited to announce that we have now completed post production on
Citizens United, The Movie. And we are now doing film festival
submissions and considering other screening opportunties.
In Citizens United, The Movie, we take on the issues of corporate
personhood
and accountability, money as speech, the remote control drone murder of civliians, and
more.
The new video clip preview is a call to action, dramatizing the moment that the
activists in our story are reacting to the Citizens United supreme court
decision, in particular the 2010 State of the Union speech where the
President addressed it with members of the Supreme Court in attendance.
We open with a hypothetical, but true to their writings and speeches,
conversation between founding fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton,
about the propriety of empowering corporations as artificial persons.
We then cut to a modern day TV PR ad for a major defense contractor,
highlighting with this juxtaposition the extent to which corporations
have taken over the concept of "We, The People".
And then we jump right into the middle of our main story about Occupy
America, an activist group mobilizing a movement to amend the constitution
to negate corporate personhood, while they struggle with a government
attempt to entrap a couple of their members in a phony terrorist
plot.
**********
NEW TRAILER FOR THE LAST WAR CRIME MOVIE
We also just posted a fast paced, right to the point new trailer of our first full length feature dramatic film, The Last War Crime movie, which is ready for theatrical distribution now.
In just 60 seconds, you can get the flavor of this ground-breaking production. To find out if our heroine was successful in her mission, you will have to
actually watch the movie, and screeners are now available at the same link below.
On page 37 of the Hobby Lobby decision, Alito cites the case of
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., and admits
that the argument made there, the LOSING argument, was almost
identical to the one made by Hobby Lobby in their own case. In the
Thomas case, a Jehovah's witness objected to being transferred to a
job making turrets for tanks, on the grounds those weapons could be
used to kill people. However, the Supreme Court in Thomas (the
case) refused to find
that his moral objections were actionable.
But Alito quotes some non-binding language from the Thomas case to
the effect that the Supreme Court acknowledged that "it is not for us
to say that the line he [the Jehovah's Witness] drew was unreasonable."
And then proceeds to arrive at the opposite result.
What has Alito done here?
The last quote is what is known in the legal parlance as "dicta," lip
service, nothing more really than a pat on the head, language NOT
part of the controlling part of the ruling, which by proper judicial
procedure is not supposed to be cited as precedent. The Supreme Court
in Thomas said in essence, "We will allow that you are sincere but
you still LOSE." But for Alito, this was a green light to convert the
losing argument into the winning one.
If a first year law student tendered such a line of argument they
would get laughed out of class.
It used to be that when the Supreme Court was blithely overturning
and reversing established cases they would announce that they were
doing so (as in Citizens United). Now they don't even bother. They
just summarily adopt the losing position in a previous case and keep
on trucking.
And it is not just Alito. Four other members of the Supreme Court
signed on to this supreme hatchet job.
But we still have a ways to go to fully address all the outrages in
the Hobby Lobby case. Please stay tuned for the next head-shaking
installment, "Now They Represent You, Now They Don't."
