March 27, 2008
Whatever rule is finally adopted, I believe that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires that real individual investors must have an equal right and interest in all forms of owned property as institutions or fictitious persons (corporations) are allowed. Further, since the Constitution requires equality under law in property rights, that equality in the exercise of property rights must extend to all the forms of property ownership. It must, therefore, also require an equal right to benefit from all forms of interest in property... such as the equal right and ability to either borrow real shares or assume the existence of shares and then sell in the market any borrowed or assumed corporate securities, as long as those which are sold are properly borrowed or assumed to exist, whether or not they do in fact exist.
That equal right must exist, as long as it is given that an individual who properly assumes the existence of non-extant securities he offers for sale, uses an equally and suitably compliant form of assumption as that required by law of a fictitious person. Given a similar and suitably compliant form of assumption is used, such an individual should, similarly to fictitious persons, neither be held responsible for any error in fact regarding the reality or the lack of reality or existence of any assumed security, nor otherwise for the validity of their assumptions regarding assumed securities, as long as the values generated in all transactions made using assumed securities are properly accounted for as real.
Obviously, that right must still be limited to the unfettered and equal right of individuals to sell only the fictitious (assumed) securities of genuinely extant corporate securities to either real or fictitious persons, and shall not extend to the right to sell those fictitious (assumed) securities which might be fabricated as if they are assumed to or do genuinely represent the actual securities of wholly fictitious corporations, at least until that right is also established or not denied in law or is allowed or not denied by rule of the SEC.
I must assume that once any of this twisted legal logic is allowed to pass muster, as it apparently does now at the SEC in regard to our property rights, then we can assume the intent of the Constitution in regard to ALL our rights can and will be similarly assumed to be subject to the random forces of assumption, becoming whatever any government agency willing to assume wants them to be, rather than what the Constitution says they are without assumption?