Press Release

Federal Judge to Pennsylvania Rural Communities:
'Corporations Have More Rights Than You'

Federal Judge Dismisses Civil Rights Lawsuit Brought by Rural Community
Challenging Quarry Corporation’s Claim to Corporate Constitutional "Rights"

                                        CONTACT: Thomas Linzey, Esq.
                                                  (717) 709-0457

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

     St. Thomas, Pennsylvania (May 6) – In a federal court case watched closely around the country and featured in the national media, a federal judge recently dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by a rural community questioning the wielding of constitutional "rights" by a quarry corporation against the community. Residents representing the rural community have appealed the ruling.
     The case, FROST v. St. Thomas Development Corporation, began when a quarry corporation announced plans to site a limestone quarry, asphalt plant, and concrete plant in rural St. Thomas Township, in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Residents of the Township created Friends and Residents of St. Thomas Township (FROST) to oppose the siting of the quarry. Faced with a regulatory process designed to facilitate the siting of the quarry operation, and a local government unwilling to oppose the quarry, members of FROST worked to throw out one of their elected officials and elect one of their own members, Frank Stearn.
     Running on a platform of "No Quarry, Vote Stearn", Stearn was elected as Township Supervisor. Shortly after being sworn into office, however, the quarry corporation threatened to sue the local government if the other two elected officials allowed Stearn to vote on – or discuss – any issues related to the proposed quarry.
     The corporation asserted that Stearn’s participation in governing – after running on a "no quarry" platform – would violate the corporation’s due process constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a result of that threat, Stearn has been prevented from participating in – or voting on – issues related to the proposed quarry.
     On March 24, 2004, FROST and several members of FROST filed a class-action federal lawsuit against the St. Thomas Development Corporation, the corporation’s three member Board of Directors, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and several State officers. The lawsuit asserted that the right of the residents of St. Thomas Township to representative self-government had been denied by the actions of the corporation.
     The plaintiffs decided to sue the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and several State officers, in addition to the corporation and its Directors, because Pennsylvania’s Corporations Code explicitly confers the rights of "natural persons" onto corporations chartered by the State. As such, the plaintiffs contended, the Corporation – and its Directors - could not have denied the rights of the residents of the community without the assistance of the State.
     In a decision issued on March 31, 2005, Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit, and held that:

- The Plaintiffs had not been "injured" by the actions of the corporation, and therefore lacked standing to even file their claim with the Court;
- The State could not be held liable for the actions of the corporation, even through the State chartered the corporation and endowed it with the precise constitutional rights that were then wielded against the residents of the community;
- Corporations can violate the constitutional rights of people and communities at will because they are "private actors" under the law, and the Constitution only protects people from actions of the State; and that
- Attorneys daring to bring such claims questioning the constitutional "rights" asserted by corporations could be sanctioned by reviewing courts.

In essence, Judge Kane ruled that if the rights of communities come into conflict with the "rights" of corporations, that corporate nullification of a municipal election is without a remedy in the law.

The FROST case is the first litigation to openly challenge the "well-settled law" that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional rights as persons. Through a series of court decisions over the past 120 years, courts and federal judges have bestowed a litany of constitutional rights upon corporations – and the few who run them – which enable the corporate few to override the decisions of communities.

Fran Calverase, the President of FROST, declared that "Democracy doesn't stand much of a chance when our governments - operating either through the legislature or judiciary - cloak the corporate few with the legal authority to override decisions made by community majorities. This is a clear example of how rural communities, the environment, and our children all pay a price for those privileges and rights enjoyed by the corporate few."

On April 29th, FROST and residents of St. Thomas Township filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Philadelphia, seeking to overturn Judge Kane’s decision.

Fred Walls, one of the Appellants, explained that "if this is the law in this country - that communities are prevented from electing someone to represent them if the community’s exercise of self-government infringes on a corporation’s constitutional “rights” - then we are going to force the full might of this nation to enforce those rights of a few against the rights of our community."

Legal briefs filed in the case are available through the Legal Defense Fund, which can be reached via e-mail at info@celdf.org. A Model Legal Brief for Eliminating Corporate Rights, portions of which were used in the Briefs filed with the federal court, is available on the webpage of the Legal Defense Fund at http://www.celdf.org.