Legal Definition of Human Being is....a monster?

I've seen this stated in a few places, but can't find much of an explanation or context:

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

A person will then go on to say that this is evidence of something like a NWO plot, to control people through legal means, sometimes in association with the old 'our flags have gold trim, therefore Admirals are in charge of us' types of arguements.

Now, the problem here, I think, is that most people reading this think "ah, so, these evil lawyers and nwoists are saying that all humans are monsters, legally'.

But that doesn't appear to be how it is working.
Firstly, saying that the dictionary is defining humans as the same definition as 'monster' creates a logical contradiction. Because the term monster is defined as a 'a human being that has been radically deformed'. Therefore, the definition of 'human being' CAN NOT BE 'monster'.

What I think is happening here is that the definition of a human is more or less obvious, and that anyone looking up 'human being' is being refered to the entry on 'monster', because its a qualification or exception to the definition of 'human being'.

Infact, not having seen the actual page, I am tempted to wonder if the dictionary defines 'human being' in some sensible way, AND THEN says something like 'see monster' as in 'also, for more information and qualifications, see the entry on monster, a type of human being'. But that that has been lost in the conspiracy talk on 'legal definition of human being'.


Anyone else ever seen this 'the law defines men as monsters' arguement anywhere? Seems that its mostly associated with the 'the IRS creates a fictional identity by capitalizing your name, and thus compels you in law' types of arguements.

edit: neverminding, of course, that Ballentines Law dictionary is just that, a dictionary, on legal phrases, not the actual law.

[edit on 11-11-2006 by Nygdan]

indeed unless you claim holy blood... by Jesus Christ perhaps? .. is it a set up for ... 'the time' .. lol

What a joke it is.. yet how true... we are only human.. as humans.. but by thought we are masters in our own rights..

An author will often write their personal views into their work, most often without meaning to. Perhaps here again, the author has little faith in the natural will and disposition of man. Perhaps in his mind we are all, indeed, monsters. Who is to say that one word has this particular meaning, but the man who has given it that meaning? It IS a law book, afterall. ; )

Ah, yes, because we know that quoting an obscure legal treatise from over seventy years ago is proof positive of the schemes and machinations of the NWO, which I may add, has never been conclusively demonstrated to even exist.

www.juralarbitration.com...

Go there, and click on WORDS.

This place charges in gold and not dollars.

I think this is what you are looking for.

This is actually a very interesting topic because I have tried to find the legal definition of a monster for some time. It is very difficult to find information as it’s apparently a very obscure phrase that dates back to the time of the Roman Empire. I’ll tell you all what I think is correct about that phrase, but I cannot guarantee it, because as mentioned I have looked around some for this as well.

I believe that in Roman Law this phrase referred to someone who was not a citizen of Rome, nor a slave. Roman citizens were allowed a special set of privileges that extended into all aspects of their lives; the ability to truly own land, the ability to vote, lesser punishments for crimes, and so on. If you were not a slave and not a citizen, then this would be the class that you fell into, almost like the serfs in a fealty.

This is still important to this day, as it is a part of Roman Common Law, corpus juris civilis, on which almost all European and American law is founded. The bit Nygdan is referring to about your name in all caps, is related to the UCC Redemption process and is called a “straw man”. Now, again, I am not sure if this is accurate, and it is a VERY VERY complex, and confusing subject.

According to UCC redemption, you become a serf or monster of this country at birth, when you apply for a “certificate of live birth”. This allows the government to have control over you, which is why they are allowed to charge you taxes, put you in prison, or make you follow the law. It gives them ownership over you the same way that a Lord would own his surfs and the land they worked. If they did not have this type of control then they would not be able to tax you on your holdings. The tax is basically, what you owe them for using their land. You never truly own your property, which is why you are always charged taxes or rent on it.

There are supposedly ways to get around this, and become your own sovereign person, but it is very complex and will often lead to time in prison if you don’t know exactly what you are doing. Supposedly when that “certificate of live birth” is filed, it goes to the department of treasury, who opens an account in your name and deposits money in it. They are the agent of that “straw man” account and it is used along with your taxes to pay off your portion of the national debt. Some claim that there is a way to make yourself the agent over that account and control it on your own. Again, there are many conflicting laws on this subject and the laws change frequently. There are sites out there which will try and charge you a ton of money for a book on the subject which might lead you right into jail. So be very cautious if you are looking into trying this.


[edit on 9/6/2007 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


I've heard of some people landing in VERY hot water because of this...I also heard that this theory was a hoax...I definitely would not pursue this theory, not wise.

OK...I hope this sheds some light on the subject. Grossly deformed individuals, such as the hunchback of Notre Dame, were, back in the bad ole' days, referred to as "monsters". They had no rights. I think this is what the dictionary is referring to. Human being is cross-referenced to monster because, in the eyes of the editors of this dictionary, the only relevant legal issues surrounding one's humanity was whether one was a monster or not.

en.wikipedia.org...

No this very defiantly goes back even before that and involves folks who are were not citizens, yet not slaves. Like I said it is very difficult information to try and find. I am aware that folks suffering from certain defects were also refered to as monsters, but its not the same thing.

As to whether UCC Redemption is a hoax or not, that is a tough one. I believe that there is something to it, more then the government wants folks to understand. There was at least one individual I have crossed paths with on this site who claimed that he had successfully gone through the process. Think about this for a second:

What exactly give the government the right to enforce its will upon you?
What exactly gives them the right to charge you money for living on land you own?
What gives them the right to put a citizen to death for breaking their laws?
What gives them the right to hold a person in prison for breaking their laws?

Somewhere in the process of becoming a citizen you gave them the right to have that control over you. It is so much of the process of citizenship in any supposedly "free" country, for so long now that we don’t even give it a second thought. However there is defiantly a defining moment when you become a citizen and are now bound by the set of laws and privileges that citizenship grants you.

Here check out this:

"Monstrous Rhetoric"
For example, children born of prostitutes are “monsters,” according to Roman law, since they have a human nature crossed with the “bestial characteristic of having been born of vagabond or uncertain unions.”

Like I said there is defiantly more to this then simply birth defects.
I am glad there are some folks interesting in searching this out, I find this to be a very interesting thread topic.


[edit on 9/7/2007 by defcon5]

A few more I found:

Midieval World
6. Christians, barbarians and monsters

John of Salisbury
Concerning actors and mimes, buffoons and harlots, panders and other like human monsters, which the prince ought rather to exterminate entirely than to foster, there needed no mention to be made in the law; which indeed not only excludes all such abominations from the court of the prince, but totally banishes them from among the people of God.

Monster
MONSTER - An animal which has a conformation contrary to the order of nature.

A monster, although born of a woman in lawful wedlock, cannot inherit. Those who have however the essential parts of the human form and have merely some defect of coformation, are capable of inheriting, if otherwise qualified.

No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape, can be lawfully destroyed.
--b—

To Be or Not To Be a Human Being?
From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'
From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'
'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-difinitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Originally posted by defcon5

What exactly give the government the right to enforce its will upon you?
What exactly gives them the right to charge you money for living on land you own?
What gives them the right to put a citizen to death for breaking their laws?
What gives them the right to hold a person in prison for breaking their laws?

These are quite easy questions to answer. It all goes back to social contract theory. People voluntarily surrender some rights to the government in return for protection of others. Governments only have legitimacy thru this process.

But there has to be a defining moment when you agreed to allow the government you currently live under to have the right to rule you. I believe that for most of us that is when your parents file the certificate of live birth, which is why that document is filed in the US treasury department. This is the application form for your birth certificate, not the birth certificate itself which is filed elsewhere. I believe that when you file for UCC Redemption, you are reversing that process and becoming an agent over your own affairs. At that point you become sovereign unto yourself, and not to the government. As I said this is not a straight forward process, and its not one they willingly give out the instructions too. If everyone filed for Redemption, then the government would lose control over a vast number of people and assets.

However on the same token, if you file this then the government owes nothing back to you either, and you are totally on your own. So you are correct in that fact that most will not want to file such a thing as it removes certain privileges and safeties from them as well.

Normally when I have heard about folks getting in trouble for filing UCC redemption, the problems stem from them trying to access the money held in the account, or when they try and do it to avoid some law after they already broke it.

I don’t really understand all of this, but this is a piece of a U2U sent to me by sweftl337 quite a long time ago. You can see that he is mentioning this same process.

On your Birth Certificate, have a look at the bottom near the edges or on the back. You will see in very, very tiny font " Bank Note" or "Treasury Note" etc. It represents the system we live under today and verifies that we are "human" or “human resources” and not a person anymore. A human is defined as a "monster" under Roman Law and thus you have no RIGHTS, whereas a "person" has RIGHTS. We are not sovereigns; we are “citizens” under International Admiralty Maritime Law, also formally called Cannon law. Our soldiers are even called GI’s or “General Issues” or “Bonds”. The FED is controlled via the City of London, which is controlled via the Knights of Malta, via the Jesuit Order.

Whether you realize it or not, much of what he is stating, while difficult to understand, is true. We are subject to rules under Roman Common Law, which is the foundation of the laws of both Europe and the United States. The United States is also incorporated under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), and this was done when the nation was founded by the British. It’s not a very big secret that the British used to incorporate all of their satellite empires, a good example being the “Honourable East India Company” running India.

The founding fathers of this Nation were all lawyers who had received their ability to practice law under the Bar of England. This was called the “Temple Bar” and was run out of a place know as the “Inns of Court” in the “City of London”. Similarly the companies which ran British Colonies were also run and administered out of the “City of London”. The “City” contains two Enclaves, the inner and middle Temple, and administers its own laws. This was all closely tied into the Knights Templar at one time, as they controlled the “Temple Church”, after which much of this is named, and the original banks. However, who really ran and controled the “City of London”?

Although it is very difficult to prove this now, at one time "The City" was run by the Vatican. “The City” was located on land which was owned and controlled by the Vatican because it was the area surrounding St Paul’s Cathedral. For some reason this information, which was once easily available, seems to have disappeared off of many sites. There is a real conspiracy out there to keep folks from knowing exactly how powerful Rome was, and possibly still is.

This goes very much into things like prophecy, and religion, but I’ll stay away from that topic as much as is possible. Though I personally believe that is part of the reason that much of this information is so hard to pin down. There was a concerted effort by the Roman Catholic Church, around the time of the Protestant Reformation (due to Luther’s printing of the New Testament in German), to hide certain facts, and come up with competing schools of prophetic interpretation, which they did through the Jesuit Order.

Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism
But the Catholic Church eventually came to the conclusion that it would not be able to ban or burn all the Bibles, heretical books, and heretics that possessed or preached from them. This oppressive and crude tactic merely confirmed their identification as the harlot persecuting church of prophecy. A new and more subtle approach was needed in order to effectively counter the application of apocalyptic prophecy to the Catholic Church.
One major identifying characteristic the Catholic Church needed to deal with was the time period of 1260 years that the antichrist power was to rule, according to Protestantism's Historicist interpretation. There simply is only one entity on earth that has ruled for this length of time after the fall of pagan Rome, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. A new "interpretation" would have to be found that deflected attention away from the twelve century papal rule of the middle ages.

Not only did they wish to hide their spot in prophecy, but also that of the power which would come up after them.
As I said, there is a lot more to this topic then first meets the eye.

[edit on 9/8/2007 by defcon5]

This is a discussion I like.

My limited knowledge on the subject and abilities in English prevents me to add much. All I can say it is stuff I've been pondering upon for a long time (the flag and birth certificate).

Initially I got it from this site.

www.usavsus.info...

Check it out, there're tonnes of stuff in there.

check out jordan maxwell video`s on yahoo for more

reply to post by Nygdan


human being is not a monster... but when you are a child you resemble a monster...or can be interpreted as being a monster ...resembles a human being but no inheritance or property rights...

so what happens is your mother's person makes an application of live birth.. and a legal entiity called person is created for you ..this legal fiction is property of the system ..(which is bankrupted to the bankers) attached to it is a human cell that can collect interest (tax) to be paid to the bankers (central bankers are the ones creating the debt which has to be paid back). the name of the person , not you , is written on the birht certifacate..which th esystem entitles you to have rights..property and inheritance rights...
you are a human being with rights now .. by acting through the persona or mask (per sona : for sound ... you speak through the mask while your life's on the stage... all life's a stage and we're mere actors...shakespeare aka francis bacon : who was a major proponent for canon admiralty law

Reply to annon

human being is not a monster... but when you are a child you resemble a monster...or can be interpreted as being a monster ...resembles a human being but no inheritance or property rights... so what happens is your mother's person makes an application of live birth.. and a legal entiity called person is created for you ..this legal fiction is property of the system ..(which is bankrupted to the bankers) attached to it is a human cell that can collect interest (tax) to be paid to the bankers (central bankers are the ones creating the debt which has to be paid back). the name of the person , not you , is written on the birht certifacate..which th esystem entitles you to have rights..property and inheritance rights...
you are a human being with rights now .. by acting through the persona or mask (per sona : for sound ... you speak through the mask while your life's on the stage... all life's a stage and we're mere actors...shakespeare aka francis bacon : who was a major proponent for canon admiralty law

I would'nt really spend to much time on this. If your interested in this subject start studying the book "construction of statutes". It's within statutes that you've been minipulated with you legal fiction, artificial person, slave status, corporate entity. That is you've become JOHN DOE Driver , JOHN DOE - Taxpayer,or Officer etc

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Originally posted by Swingarm
Reply to annon

human being is not a monster... but when you are a child you resemble a monster...or can be interpreted as being a monster ...resembles a human being but no inheritance or property rights... so what happens is your mother's person makes an application of live birth.. and a legal entiity called person is created for you ..this legal fiction is property of the system ..(which is bankrupted to the bankers) attached to it is a human cell that can collect interest (tax) to be paid to the bankers (central bankers are the ones creating the debt which has to be paid back). the name of the person , not you , is written on the birht certifacate..which th esystem entitles you to have rights..property and inheritance rights...
you are a human being with rights now .. by acting through the persona or mask (per sona : for sound ... you speak through the mask while your life's on the stage... all life's a stage and we're mere actors...shakespeare aka francis bacon : who was a major proponent for canon admiralty law

I would'nt really spend to much time on this. If your interested in this subject start studying the book "construction of statutes". It's within statutes that you've been minipulated with your legal fiction, artificial person, slave status, corporate entity. That is you've become JOHN DOE Driver , JOHN DOE - Taxpayer,or Officer etc. Your legal fiction has been associated with these creatures within statutes. That is why it is important to establish yourself as a natural person, that is represented by the the bill of rights, not some statute that does not recognise your god given rights because you've been changed into a legal fiction.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Swingarm]