Are you a Person? Or an owned Corporation?

a reply to: Azureblue

person. (13c) 1. A human being. Also termed natural person. - Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 1257

Seems there is a definition of person that includes a human being. Note that the "13c" stands for 13th century, when that particular definition came into common use in English.

From Washington's RCW 46 Motor Vehicle Code:

RCW 46.04.405 "Person" includes every natural person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or organization.
RCW 46.04.356 "Natural person" means a human being.

Seems there is legislation that defines a person as a human being. It was enacted in 2010 by Senate Bill 6379. So much for your claim.

a reply to: NewzNose

.> o.O

Gotcha, makes sense.........

a reply to: coop039

I was less interested in the practical use of it and more drawn by the semantics of legal definitions and how they change our identity based on capitals or capitilized. Also the birth cerficate thing does work and it is interesting to find out your BC is being traded as a stock with other countries as though it holds some sort of value, and the only value attached is you.

Apparently there are scammers or some # out there so i would advise against doing anything stupid like paying to learn about this from an "expert" or Sovereign Citizen Bull#ter as I am told. Not that anyone would but still.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon
Except that plenty of people have paid for this BS and really screwed up their lives as a result. It's how the likes of Karl Lentz makes his money. It is how Dean Clifford made money prior to being sent to jail. It is how Gordon Hall made some of his money before he was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison. It's how Rob Menard could afford to buy beer and grass.

a reply to: erwalker

I thought i would mention it still. I am an open minded researcher, I am neither claiming this to be fact or fiction I am just interested in it as a subject and technically some of the main concepts are valid, it is just whether there is actaully meaning or conspiracy behind it.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon
If by some of the main concepts you mean such things as a birth certificate is traded like a stock certificate or that your name in all capital letters vice a mix of upper and lower case letters has some significance, they are not valid.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

This was intended for your other post which was closed:
I think a better and more interesting topic, not to diminish your OP mind you, would be "What if a majority, I mean like over 75% of Americans simply decided at any given tax season not to pay?" Plenty of us don't like it but we do, despise those that don't, and completely agree it goes to a multitude of nefarious projects and programs, but mostly towards the interest on the loans the US Treasury gets from the Federal Reserve. What could the government do? Declare martial law? Start arresting citizens en masse? Or would it maybe change the direction of things?
I'm not naive enough to believe that would ever happen, but it does make one think.

BTW: As far as sovereign anything pertaining to terrorist definitions, according to the Patriot Act and the NDAA, I would say at least 70% of topics and comments on ATS fall under the definition of being a terrorist. Either your aware of that and don't care, or your a proud to be terrorist. Ironically, it's just like the two sides of the lawful or unlawful income tax debate. Either you think you're being scammed and don't pay, or you think it's lawful and you do pay. Either way, generally we're all screwed.

a reply to: EternalShadow

It is just intellectual arrogance for the most part. Even though this is a free thinking site, most people will attack you if they dont agree, not to try and convin_javascript:icon('')ce you otherwise though, it will just be to try and prove how clever they are or possibly aren't

As for income Tax it is illegal, they are liars. Thats the thing, people will believe offical sources even if they come here and complain about MSM and stuff like this. The 16th ammendment was ruled by the surpreme court as infering no "new taxing powers". Yet it is the 16th that the irs use as justification.

People don't seem to understand just how much this stuff matters. They either try and prove you wrong or say it is no big deal. Your incoem tax isn't paying for schools hospitals or roads, it's lining the pockets of bankers. People also don't seem to understand they are breaking the constitution and forcing you to go against your rights under false valification. income tax is around 239bil a year, They owe every single cent back to the American people. They also owe apologies for all the people they have robbed, bankrupted, left homeless, and put in prison to rot after draining them dry. Scumbags.

originally posted by: erwalker
a reply to: Azureblue

person. (13c) 1. A human being. Also termed natural person. - Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 1257

Seems there is a definition of person that includes a human being. Note that the "13c" stands for 13th century, when that particular definition came into common use in English.

From Washington's RCW 46 Motor Vehicle Code:

RCW 46.04.405 "Person" includes every natural person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or organization.
RCW 46.04.356 "Natural person" means a human being.

Seems there is legislation that defines a person as a human being. It was enacted in 2010 by Senate Bill 6379. So much for your claim.

Perhaps this is so in the US and perhaps some other jurisdictions.

Yes, natural person is a definition of person but while that may indicate a human person, keep in mind that if they wanted the definition to mean a human being in this definition, then they would have used the words human being.

The fact that they do not suggests the definition does not necessarily mean human being. The law is by and large designed, to fool the everyday person. Making assumptions about what legal definitions are is fraught with risk.

Try looking up the definition of Human or Human Being in blacks law. If its not defined then ask your self why not.

a reply to: Azureblue

Human being is one of the main definitions of person, It is non debatable. It usually refered to as a human being or natural person, natural person being the secondary example. Person can also mean a number of other things such as corporations but its primary reference to a human person is human being.
I feel like you are debating this now just because you don't want to accept being wrong. Looking up human being has no relevance to the meaning of person.
Maybe it is not defined because person and natural person both mean human being. Its redundent having human being as a standalone word when there are already two ways of expressing this.
Obviously using person instead of human being allows for subtle tricks when manipulating the law, but the fact legal terms are presented in a certain way to potentially trick the average person has already been established.

What he said

person. (13c) 1. A human being. Also termed natural person. - Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 1257

What You Said

Yes, natural person is a definition of person but while that may indicate a human person, keep in mind that if they wanted the definition to mean a human being in this definition, then they would have used the words human being.

Seems quite clear human being is the definition, you will find it stated so in blacks and any other english language legal dictonary

a reply to: erwalker

I don't see how a bill acted in 2010 can appear in a 2009 issue of black law?

You said:

person. (13c) 1. A human being. Also termed natural person. - Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 1257

It was enacted in 2010 by Senate Bill 6379

9th edition was released in 2009.

The first edition was published in 1891, and the second edition in 1910.[1] The sixth and earlier editions of the book also provided case citations for the term cited, which some lawyers view as its most useful feature, providing a useful starting point with leading cases. The Internet made legal research easier than it ever had been, so many state- or circuit-specific case citations and outdated or overruled case citations were dropped from the seventh edition in 1999. The eighth edition introduced a unique system of perpetually updated case citations and cross-references to legal encyclopedias. The ninth edition was published in the summer of 2009.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

Back to 1933, when America technically declared Bankruptcy and the independent Federal Reserve was born.

DJT knows the laws regarding filing for bankruptcy...do you think this is something he is prepared to do if elected Presedente? And come up with a new finance system to get America out of debt or into more debt????

a reply to: Phage

How about your tax docs, your mortgage or any legal papers?
Once your Birth Cert. was sent to the Bureau of Statistics, you became a vessle of the corp. USA, Inc, in which to use to trade on the stock market.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon
It should be obvious that I know the 9th Edition of Black's Law was published in 2009 since I cited it as "Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 1257"

I did not say that a particular Washington State Senate bill passed in 2010 appears in a legal dictionary published in 2009.

What I said, and which you disingenuously omitted from what you claimed I said, was:

From Washington's RCW 46 Motor Vehicle Code:

RCW 46.04.405 "Person" includes every natural person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or organization.
RCW 46.04.356 "Natural person" means a human being.

Seems there is legislation that defines a person as a human being. It was enacted in 2010 by Senate Bill 6379. So much for your claim.

It is quite apparent from what I wrote that the statutes identified as RCW 46.04.405 and 46.04.356 were enacted by the legislation identified as Washington Senate Bill 6379 in 2010. It is an example that contradicts your claim there is no legislation that defines a person as a human being.

It seems to be a common trait of those who espouse "freeman/sovereign" beliefs to misrepresent what is written, whether it is a comment in a thread or a decision by a court.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Azureblue

I feel like you are debating this now just because you don't want to accept being wrong. Looking up human being has no relevance to the meaning of person.

y

A rather silly and self demeaning thing to say one would think. Please feel free to believe whatever you wish. I have no desire to discuss anything with those who have views you seem to harbor.

Funny how many people who respond a lot to ones post turn out to be the type that is best let slip past in the first place.

cheers.