Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The UNION of PERSON

0 views

Skip to first unread message

StaR

unread,

Feb 26, 2003, 3:10:39 PM2/26/03

It's not only what you don't know that hurts you, it's also
what you know that ain't so

Our operative Austin Rayder would have us believe that at law the word
PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) MEANS men, women and
children. Of course this is a false statement. At law, the word
PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) is APPLIED to men,
women and children. And this is the lie that our government shill is
basing his entire argument on in order to deceive you. You see, there
is indeed quite a significant difference between the two as we shall
see.

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are
called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly
synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of
society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be
his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank
he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds
entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
----------

And as we've have seen, the word PERSON signifies a CHARACTER that is
EMPLOYED to men, women and children. These characters / persons, such
as a VOTER or RESIDENT or TAXPAYER, etc,.... are CREATED by the
OPERATION of the law - that is to say, they are LEGAL EXISTENCES or
LEGAL PERSONALITIES, fictitious ENTITIES (created by the law, not
God) that only exist within the legal sphere. It is a LEGAL EXISTENCE
that can be TERMINATED or SUSPENDED or even MERGED into that of
another. No, we are not talking about TERMINATING the human being as
our operative implies, we are talking about TERMINATING the LEGAL
EXISTENCE - the PERSON. And no, we are not talking about SUSPENDING a
human being as our operative implies, we are talking about SUSPENDING
the legal EXISTENCE - the PERSON and no, we are not talking about
MERGING two human beings together to create a single human being as
our operative implies as we all know this is just absurd, we are
talking about the MERGING of TWO legal existences (persons) to create
a single legal existence, that is, a SINGLE PERSON.

----------
"139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality,
yet there are among them marked natural differences. The distinctions
of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from nature.

To these natural qualities, the civil or municipal laws have added
distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the
manners of the people, or the will of the legislature. . .". ---
Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
Bouvier. 1854.
----------

THE CIVIL OR MUNICIPAL LAWS HAVE ADDED DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE PURELY
CIVIL AND ARBITRARY.

There's a maxim of law that explains what Bouvier is saying here, that
is...

Homo vocabulum est; Persona juris civilis. Calvinus, Lex. "Man (homo)
is a term of nature; person (persona), of the civil law.

And what is a PERSON (persona)?

----------
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary

persona , ae, f [acc. to Gabius Bassus ap. Gell. 5, 7, 1 sq., from
per-sono, to sound through, with the second syllable lengthened].

II. Transf., a personage, character, part, represented by an actor:
"parasiti persona," Ter. Eun. prol. 26 sq. : "sub persona militis,"
Gell. 13, 22, 11 : "(tragici) nihil ex persona poëtae dixerunt,"
Vell. 1, 3, 2 .--Hence,

B. Also, transf. beyond the scenic lang., in gen., the part or
character which any one sustains in the world (class.):

2. A human being who performs any function, plays any part, a person,
personage: ...to people of a certain standing and of a certain age,
Suet. Caes. 43 :...

(g). Law t. t., a being having legal rights and obligations (including
the state, etc.; not including slaves; cf. Sandars ad Just. Inst.
introd. § 37; "1, 3 prooem.): omne jus quo utimur, vel ad personas
pertinet vel ad res vel ad actiones," Dig. 1, 5, 1 ; Just. Inst. 1, 3
prooem.--
----------

As stated above and below, a PERSON is a LEGAL PERSONALITY - a
CHARACTER, a ROLE or PART that a man takes on.

----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

person (per'son or per'sn), n. [( ME. Person, persun, persone,
persoun, Parson, a person or parson, ( OF. petsone, person, parson,
F. personne, person, = Sp. persona = Pg. pessoa = It. persona, a
person, character, = OFries. persona, perseuna, persina, person,
parson, = NID. persoon, D. persoon, person, character, -- MLG.
persone, person, character, parson, -- NIHG. persone, person, G.
person, person, ---- Icel. persona, personi, person, parson, = Sw.
Dan. person, person, personage, character, < L. persona, a mask for
actors, hence a personage, character, or a part represented by an
actor, a part which one sustains in the world, a person or
personage, ML. also a parson; said to be derived, with lengthening of
the radical vowel, < personare, sound through, resound, make a sound
on a musical instrument, play, call out, etc., ( per, through, +
sSaare, sound, < sonus, sound: see so,ant, soundS. The orig. sense
'mask' is late in E., and is a mere Latinism.]

1. A mask anciently worn by actors, covering the whole head, and
varying according to the character to be represented; hence, a mask
or disguise.

Certain it is that no man can long put on a person and act a part but
his evil manners will peep through the corners of the white robe.
Jer. Taylor, Apples of Sodom, iii.

2. The character represented by such a mask or by the player who wore
it; hence, character; role; the part which one assumes or sustains on
the stage or in life.

From his first appearance upon the stage, in his new person of a
sycophant or juggler, instead of his former person of a prince, he
[Perkin Warbeck] was exposed to the derision not only of the
courtiers, but also of the common people. Bacon, Hist. Hen. VII., p.
186.

I then did use the person of your father; The image of his power lay
in me. Shak., 2 Hen. IV., v. 2. 74.

I must take upon me the person of a philosopher, and make them a
present of my advice. Steele, Guardian, No. 141.
----------

And what civil law is Bouvier speaking of?

The ROMAN municipal / civil law as so ADOPTED by the CORPORATE BODY
without DISTINCTION as to the TIME when the principles of such law
were established..

----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

LAW, CIVIL. The term civil law is generally applied by way of eminence
to the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire, without
distinction as to the time when the principles of such law were
established or modified. In another sense, the civil law is that
collection of laws comprised in the institutes, the code, and the
digest of the emperor Justinian, and the novel constitutions of
himself and some of his successors. Ersk. Pr. L. Scotl. B. 1, t. l,
s. 9; 6 L. R. 494.

CIVIL LAW. The municipal code of the Romans is so called. It is a rule
of action, adopted by mankind in a state of society. It denotes also
the municipal law of the land. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 11. See Law, civil.
----------
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

MUNICIPAL - Strictly, this word applies only to what belongs to a
city. Among the Romans, cities were called municipia; these cities
voluntarily joined the Roman republic in relation to their
sovereignty only, retaining, their laws, their liberties, and their
magistrates, who were thence called municipal magistrates. With us
this word has a more extensive meaning; for example, we call
municipal law, not the law of a city only, but the law of the state.
Municipal is used in contradistinction to international; thus we say
an offence against the law of nations is an international offence,
but one committed against a particular state or separate community,
is a municipal offence.

MUNICIPALITY - The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to
a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its
interests.
----------

Even Blackstone recognizes that the CIVIL law is the ROMAN LAW or
ROMAN CIVIL LAW.

"'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law' and 'Roman Civil Law' are convertible
phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence." Black's 3rd p 332.

And the ROMAN LAW is very clear as to what a PERSON is...

----------
Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

PERSON: in Roman law a person was a legal entity or party to a
contract while in Roman theater a person described the mask worn by
the actor to play a specific role. Neither usage identifies a person
as a self-conscious being.
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on
either side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal
tradition, PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e.,
of the legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to
have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the
legal sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is
systematically ignorant of the biological status of its subjects."
- Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American
Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part
he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the
emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1

Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
----------

A PERSON is a CREATION, an ARTIFACT of the law itself and has NO
EXISTENCE of ANY KIND outside of the legal sphere. And, consistent
with all our references, a PERSON signifies a CHARACTER, a ROLE or
PART that is ASSUMED by a man - a LEGAL EXISTENCE. This is how the
word person is APPLIED to men, women and children.

----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition,
the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the
legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or
imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter,
and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate
for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with
ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are
observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules
prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in
substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis
of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". 2 Abbott's Law
Dict. 24.
----------

Thus we say that a PERSON is a LIMITED LIABILITY.

----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

LIM'ITED, pp.

1. Bounded; circumscribed; restrained.

LIABIL'ITY, n.

1. The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice;
responsibility. The officer wishes to discharge himself from his
liability.
----------

And as Blackstone would say, not every human being IS A PERSON.

----------
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.

Person: "...not every human being is a person."
----------

This from the maxim of law....

Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim. "Every person is a man, but
not every man a person,"

When the law addresses an INDIVIDUAL, the reference is to a SINGLE
PERSON not a man.

----------
Individual. adj. 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or
relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group. --Black's
Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, The West Group © 1999.
----------

And what is an ENTITY?

It is a separate EXISTENCE (legal) for TAX PURPOSES. It is a separate
ECONOMIC UNIT "subject" to FINANCIAL measurement for ACCOUNTING
purposes. PERSONS and CORPORATIONS are EQUIVALENT entities under the
law as the law DOES NOT CONSIDER their PROPERTIES, in other words, the
law is "ignorant of the biological status of its subjects". As Judge
Sedgwick puts it... "As a "person", the applicant has the, same
rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax
Act."

----------
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

ENTITY - An organization or person that possesses a separate existence
for tax purposes. An example of an entity would be a corporation,
partnership, or trust.
----------
Dictionary of Real Estate, Jae K. Shim, Joel G. Siegel and Stephen W.
Hartman Copyright © 1996

entity - Separate economic unit subject to financial measurement for
accounting purposes. Examples are a real estate corporation, real
estate partnership, and trust.
----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.

en·ti·ty

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons
and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. 2. The fact of
existence; being. 3. The existence of something considered apart from
its properties.
----------

As mentioned earlier, a PERSON can be terminated. Again, we are not
talking about terminating the human being as our operative implies. We
are talking about terminating the LEGAL EXISTENCE. This is known as
being CIVILLY DEAD.

----------
Newbury House Dictionary of American English

non-per·son n. a person whom the government seeks to make nonexistent
by banishing him or her from public life and removing all mention of
him or her from public records: The scientist became a nonperson in
his country after criticizing the government.
----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)

Death. Cessation of life; extinction of political existence.

Civil death. Extinction of civil rights. A bankrupt is regarded as
civilly dead. 101 U.S. 406 (1879). Civilitur mortuus - civilly dead.
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

FIGURES OF SPEECH. By figures of speech is meant that manner of
speaking or writing, which has for its object to give to our
sentiments and, thoughts a greater force, more vivacity and
agreeableness.

<clip>

The state or condition of a man who has been deprived by the law of
almost all his social prerogatives or rights, has received the
metaphorical name of civil death.
----------

This brings us to my subject at hand.....

The Union of Person

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to meet Mr. and Mrs. Austin Rayder.

Yes, rumor has it that our operative is gay but we'll give him the
benefit of the doubt for our discussion.

So what exactly does that mean.. MR. and MRS Austin Rayder (husband's
name)?

Now remember the argument...

Austin Rayder (operative) says...natural person = a human being.

StaR says natural person = a legal existence created by the law which
has no existence outside of the legal sphere, a fictitious entity, a
character assumed by a human being (a legal personality).

Well, lets look at the following....

----------
American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections 1-9, "Husband and Wife", Lawyers
Cooperative Publishing, New York (1995).

Under coverture, the husband and wife were one person (the entirety)
and that one person was the husband in the eyes of the common law.
Therefore, as to her personal and property rights, the wife's legal
existence was suspended during the marriage and merged into that of
the husband. She lost the capacity to contract for herself, or to sue
or be sued, without joining the husband as plaintiff or defendant. The
husband was entitled to all of the wife's personal property and
"choses in action" (lawsuits), and in turn, the husband became liable
for all torts committed by the wife, whether before or after marriage
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

PARTIES, contracts. Those persons who engage themselves to do, or not
to do the matters and things contained in an agreement.

9. - 1. A married woman has, in general, no power or capacity to
contract during the coverture. Com. Dig. Baron & Feme, W; Pleader, 2 A
1. She has in legal contemplation no separate existence, her hushand
and herself being in law but one person.
----------
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the
husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every
thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

COVERTURE. The state or condition of a married woman.

2. During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many
purposes, into that of her hushand; she can, therefore, in general,
make no contracts without his consent, express or implied. Com. Dig.
Baron and Feme, W; Pleader, 2 A 1; 1 Ch. Pl. 19, 45; Litt. s. 28;
Chit. Contr. 39; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 276.
----------
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On Coverture

COVERTURE - Obs. in most nations. The state or condition of a married
woman.

During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many
purposes, into that of her husband; she can, therefore, in general,
make no contracts without his consent, express or implied.
----------
American Women's Legal and Social Status in the 19th Century
by Ann Braude

Ann Braude is director of the Women's Studies in Religion program and
senior lecturer on American religious history at Harvard Divinity
School.

"The law said that the husband and wife were one, and that that "one"
was the man.

This law meant that the man had the legal possession of all of his
wife's property, that her wages legally belonged to him, and that she
couldn't enter into a contract. She had no independent legal
existence. She didn't even have custody rights of her children. 19th
century American women had no legal expectation that they could gain
custody of their children, even if they went to court to do so. That
was part of the legal nonexistence of women: You couldn't be a
custodian unless you existed. Child-custody rights thus fell to
fathers or any adult male who was de facto assumed to have legal
rights."
----------
A Brief Summary in Plain Language of the Most Important Laws
Concerning Women (1854): a machine-readable transcription

Bodichon, Barbara Leigh Smith (1827-1891)

http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/bodichon/brieflaw.html#bodichon-note18

Married women no legal existence.

A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights
as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of
her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under
his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture.

A wife acts under coercion of her husband.

As the wife acts under the command and control of her husband,
she is excused from punishment for certain offences, such as theft,
burglary, housebreaking, &c., if committed in his presence and under
his influence. A wife cannot be found guilty of concealing her felon
husband or of concealing a felon jointly with her husband. She cannot
be found guilty of stealing from her husband or of setting his house
on fire, as they are one person in law. A husband and wife cannot be
found guilty of conspiracy, as that offence cannot be committed unless
there are two persons.
----------

Pretty straight forward folks!!!! As far as the LAW was concerned,
the woman had NO separate LEGAL EXISTENCE (person). Her legal
existence WAS MERGED into that the the husband (his person). At LAW
they were considered as O-N-E P-E-R-S-O-N, that person being the
HUSBAND. She had NO CAPACITY to CONTRACT for herself, or to SUE or be
SUED.

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

Now lets look at the fallacy....

Natural person = human being

At law, the woman was not a human being. Her human being was MERGED
into that of the husband's human being. The law now considered them as
one human being, that human being is the male human being. Because
she wasn't a human being she had no right to contract, to sue or be
sued.

This is according to our resident operative Rayder, Austin. A little
RETARDED isn't it??? lol

F-A-C-T

At law, the word PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) is
APPLIED to men, women and children.

Application

The word PERSON signifies a CHARACTER that is EMPLOYED to men, women
and children. These characters (persons), such as a CITIZEN or a VOTER
or a RESIDENT or a TAXPAYER, etc,.... are CREATED by the OPERATION of
the law - that is to say, they are LEGAL EXISTENCES or LEGAL
PERSONALITIES, fictitious ENTITIES (created by the law, not God) that
have NO EXISTENCES outside the legal sphere. It is a LEGAL EXISTENCE
that can be TERMINATED or SUSPENDED or even MERGED into that of
another.

Now pay close attention to the following....

-----------
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/geweb/PROPERTY.htm

Property Rights of Women in Nineteenth-Century England

This law also dictated that when women married, their legal
personalities were subsumed into their husbands'

Furthermore, married women were legal as well as economic
non-entities.

Laurence notes, "English common law did not recognize pre-nuptial
contracts; all contracts made by a woman were annulled by her
marriage"

In 1882, the twenty-seven year campaign for women's property rights
culminated in the Married Women's Property Act of 1882. The Act,
according to Stetson, "altered the common law doctrine of coverture
to include the wife's right to own, buy, and sell her separate
property" (90). This act obligated the courts to recognize a husband
and a wife as two separate legal entities.
----------

TWO EXTREMELY IMPORTANT points are made here.

"married women were legal as well as economic non-entities"

"law did not recognize pre-nuptial contracts; all contracts made by a
woman were annulled by her marriage"

Recap....

By becoming a NON-PERSON (see www.detaxcanada.org), you are NOT
recognized (jurisdiction) in the eyes of the law and ALL PREVIOUS
CONTRACTS ARE ANNULLED. But then again, we are dealing with a
CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING SYNDICATE and their doughnut eating
HIRED GUNS.

----------
Newbury House Dictionary of American English

In 1839, some of the states began making statutory changes in the law
by granting married women increased legal rights, in other words.
giving her a separate LEGAL EXISTENCE as the acts (operation of the
law) obligated the courts to recognize a husband and a wife as two
separate legal entities, TWO separate PERSONS, that is.... LIBERTY of
PERSON (and she gets to be a TAX SLAVE too).

----------
Houghton Mifflin Company, college division

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wm_008900_coverture.htm

Coverture

Beginning in Mississippi in 1839, some states began to make statutory
changes in the common law of coverture by granting married women
increased legal rights. New York's 1848 married women's statute,
which limited the scope of coverture, was the first law to gain
widespread attention. Eventually coverture was abolished in all
states. However, the reforms were not part of a coherent program to
grant equal rights to married women. As recently as 1975 one of the
remaining vestiges of coverture was eliminated when several state and
federal laws were enacted to ensure equal credit opportunity. The
abolition of coverture helped achieve formal but not substantive
equality for married women. Married women had a formal legal identity.
It paved the way for their suffrage, but did not give women equal
opportunity in employment or admission to professions.
----------

Some parts of the COVERTURE LAWS still exists today.

----------
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/62.htm

BRADWELL V. ILLINOIS (1873)
Justice Bradley concurring in the opinion of the Court.

"...a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was
regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and,
notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many
of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this
cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. "
----------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/be/article/3/0,5716,117333+15,00.html

The 19th-century Married Women's Property Acts had little effect on
this basic system. The acts removed the husband's power to control his
wife's property during the marriage, and they made it clear that the
wife had the capacity to own personal property separate from her
husband, but the basic scheme of separate property, curtesy, and
dower remained.
----------
The abolition in Tennessee of the common-law disability of coverture
does not abolish the estate of tenancy by the entirety, but does strip
it of the common-law restrictions on and deprivation of the rights of
married women. Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn.
1974).
----------

Once again people!!! (yes our jester Rayder would not put the issue to
rest)

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

F-A-C-T

At law, the word PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) is
APPLIED to men, women and children.

Application

F-A-C-T

Austin Rayder is nothing but a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG.

My final words on the Mr. and Mrs. Austin Rayder? Poor kids won't have
a mother!!!

Remember, when in n. AMERIKA, do as the ROMANS DO.

----------

The Rights of Women According to Roman Law
http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/infe_rom.htm

Roman Family Law

Roman Family Law was based on the principle that the father of the
family (pater familias) had complete authority both over the children
and his wife. This was defined as paternal power : (patria potestas).

The wife held the following position:

The wife is the property of her husband and completely subjected to
his disposition.

He could punish her in anyway, including killing her, or selling her
as a slave (the last punishment was forbidden after 100 BC).

As far as family property is concerned the wife herself does not own
anything. Everything she or her children inherit belongs to her
husband, including also the dowry which she brought with her to her
marriage.

In later time this absolute power of the husband was gradually
diminished leading to what was known as the “free marriage”, husband
and wife could agree upon.

However, even in this new situation, the husband had the right to make
the final decisions in all questions concerning the family: for
instance the place of residence which the wife had to share with him,
the education of the children, the exclusive rights on her wifely
duties, while the husband himself could make love to other women with
impunity.

The rights of women in general Civil Roman Law

Although the woman was considered a Roman citizen, she obtained her
position only through her husband. Neither slaves nor women could
carry their own name. Only men carried this distinct sign of their
being a Roman citizen.

The general law was: “In many sections of our law the condition of
women is weaker than that of men”.

Moreover, the woman was excluded from all public functions and rights:
“Women are excluded from all civil and public functions and therefore
can neither be judges nor carry any civil authority, they cannot
bring a court case, nor intercede for someone else nor act as
mediators”.

The woman could not have charge of another person. “Tutela virile
officium est” . She could not have patronage of her children and
cousins (except in later Roman law).

Women could function as witnesses, whether at the drawing up of a last
will, or in any other form of law. “The woman is incapable of being a
witness in any form of jurisprudence where witnesses are required”.
Women were reckoned with minors, slaves, the dumb and criminals to be
incapable of being witnesses.

Women could not start a court case without being represented by a man.
Women cannot represent themselves in law “because of the infirmity of
their sex and because of their ignorance about matters pertaining to
public life”.

In spite of a slight relaxation in laws which offered more protection
to women in the Roman Empire of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the overall
inferior status of women remained the same.

H.HEUMANN and E.SECKEL, Handlexikon zu den Quellen des römischen
Rechts, Graz 1958, pp. 246 and 265. L.WENGER, Institutes of the Roman
Law of Civil Procedure, Littleton 1940; F.SCHULZ, Classical Roman
Law, London 1951; M.KASER, Roman Private Law, Oxford 1965.

Excellent overviews of Roman Law and detailed excerpts of it can be
found on the web site dealing with Women's Life in Greece and Rome.

Since Church leaders took Roman Law as the norm for what is right and
just, the same negative rules regarding women found their way into
Christian thought, practice and law.

It is obvious that Christians who accepted the socially and culturally
inferior status of women, could not envisage her in the leadership
role demanded of bishops and priests.
----------

StaR

Dan Evans

unread,

Feb 26, 2003, 11:33:54 PM2/26/03

StaR <Sta...@kissmyass.com> wrote in message news:<n67q5vc63m5oabh84...@4ax.com>...

> Our operative Austin Rayder would have us believe that at law the word
> PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) MEANS men, women and
> children. Of course this is a false statement.

You really are one crazy (and stupid) bastard.

You are free to believe whatever gibberish you want. What continues
to puzzle me is why you constantly want to broadcast your gibberish
and advertise your stupidity to the world. Are you really trying to
convince everyone that you are an idiot? Or are you trying to set
some kind of record for being on the most killfile lists?

Let me try to introduce you to reality:

1. You're an idiot.

2. Repeating the same gibberish over and over again does not make it
true.

3. You're an idiot.

4. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what the
thing is. Abraham Lincoln once posed the following question: If you
call a tail a "leg," how many legs does a lamb have? The answer is
four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Saying that
a person is not a person doesn't mean that a person is not a person,
it just means that you're an idiot.

5. You're an idiot.

6. Point #4 was totally lost on you, because you believe that there
is some secret language used by lawyers that you can manipulate to
your own advantage and, by some semantic magic, "prove" that the laws
of civilized society don't apply to you.

7. You're an idiot.

That should be enough for any rational person to get the picture, but
you're an idiot, so you'll come back with some nonsense about my
participation in a world-wide conspiracy of Zionists or Illuminati or
something.

And did I mention that you're an idiot?

Dan Evans

StaR

unread,

Feb 27, 2003, 1:37:07 PM2/27/03

And so our mentally challenged operative maintains that a WOMEN was
not a human being therefore she had NO RIGHT to contract, to sue or be
sued. He also maintains that when a woman married, her human being was
somehow MERGED with his human being thus creating a single human
being, that human being his human being. After all, at law, they were
considered as one PERSON.

Hahahaha it's bad enough that he runs away from the evidence that
shows him that he is wrong, he insists that the above is correct.

I would like to start a special fund to get this idiot some medical
attention as it is obvious that he is falling apart at the seams and
is in dire need of a head doctor.

StaR

EG Warman

unread,

Feb 27, 2003, 8:02:40 PM2/27/03

StaR <Sta...@kissmyass.com> wrote ...

>
> And so our mentally challenged operative maintains that a WOMEN was
> not a human being therefore she had NO RIGHT to contract, to sue or be
> sued. He also maintains that when a woman married, her human being was
> somehow MERGED with his human being thus creating a single human
> being, that human being his human being. After all, at law, they were
> considered as one PERSON.
>
> Hahahaha it's bad enough that he runs away from the evidence that
> shows him that he is wrong, he insists that the above is correct.
>
> I would like to start a special fund to get this idiot some medical
> attention as it is obvious that he is falling apart at the seams and
> is in dire need of a head doctor.
>
> StaR
>

Obviously, the only way Rayder's head could be repaired is to first
detatch it from his "PERSON"..... Where are all these guillotines
we hear about having been positioned in and around the USA by the
Bush Gang?

Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org

StaR

unread,

Feb 27, 2003, 11:38:52 PM2/27/03

Too bad that you are such a coward to argue in this thread. I shall do
it without out you.

----------
Q) StaR, we have already covered this ground on another thread. You
avoid the real argument with sophistry.

Bouvier says, "Men, women and children, who are called natural
persons. . ."

". . .all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality. . ."
----------

You LIE by omission you lying sack of shit. This is why you have to
run away from the original threads.

Bouvier says...PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and

children, who are called natural persons."

What part don't you understand simpleton???? The subject is a PERSON.
That's the word BEING DEFINED. Now pay close attention.... THIS WORD
IS APPLIED to men, women and children...

----------
"I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same

rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.

His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------

Again, the SUBJECT is a PERSON as DEFINED in an ACT. That word
INCLUDES both a natural and artificial person. The judge is very CLEAR
that the subject is a PERSON when he says ....AS A "PERSON", the
applicant has....

Whether it is a red, yellow, black, natural, artificial....the subject
is a PERSON and this is what you are running from.

----------
Q) Yet your boy, Eldon, says, ". . [a] .'natural person' describes a
man who has been changed in status to a fictional character."
----------

That's exactly what it is... A PERSON as DEFINED in an ACT. It is the
ACT that defines it. It exists only by the operation of the act. It is
the ACT that creates the TERM PERSON along with its APPLICATION. It is
a LEGAL EXISTENCE.

----------
Q) Simply put. . . the seminal argument of detaxing is wrong as a fact
of law.
----------

You are an obnoxious ignoramus who doesn't know how to read let alone
have the ability of critical thinking.

>>
>>----------
>>"139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality,
>>yet there are among them marked natural differences. The distinctions
>>of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from nature.
>>
>>To these natural qualities, the civil or municipal laws have added
>>distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the
>>manners of the people, or the will of the legislature. . .". ---
>>Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
>>Bouvier. 1854.
>>----------
>>
>>THE CIVIL OR MUNICIPAL LAWS HAVE ADDED DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE PURELY
>>CIVIL AND ARBITRARY.

----------
Q) This ground has also been covered. A natural person is not, by
definition the subject of these civil distinctions.
----------

You lying sack of shit. The RIGHTS OF PERSONS originates from the
MUNICIPAL / CIVIL law.

----------
COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND, Sir William Blackstone, 1765,
BOOK THE FIRST, OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

"Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is
right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero, and after him our
Bracton, has expressed it, janctio jufta, jubens bonefta et prohibits
contrary; it follow, that the primary and principal objects of the law
are RIGHTS, and WRONGS."

"Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either,
first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and
are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they
are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or
things unconnected with his person, which are stiled jura rerum or
the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private
wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights,
concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly,
public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights,
affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors."
----------

They are not annexed to men....THEY ARE ANNEXED TO THE PERSONS OF MEN.

----------
Q) Bouvier is clear on this point.

If you would accept this truth you would save us all from suffering
your machinations.
----------

You are a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG.

The unalienable rights of man are from his creator.

The rights of PERSONS is from the MUNICIPAL/ CIVIL law.

No comment? lol Of course not. This is what you don't want people to
know.

A PERSON is a human being who PERFORMS any function, PLAYS ANY PART.
It is a CHARACTER; A ROLE; the PART which one ASSUMES or SUSTAINS on

the stage or in life.

So you can RUN AWAY all you want coward and start up as many threads
as you like, it will NOT change the fact that a PERSON is a CHARACTER.

----------
Q) Since natural persons are not created by civil law this babble is
pointless.
----------

Babble? hahahaha pointless?? hahaha you don't think that's it's
important that the civil law IS THAT OF THE ROMAN LAW eh??? I guess it
wouldn't be to a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG who is here to
PROMOTE the ENSLAVEMENT of man by PERSON STATUS.

Hahahaha even Blackstone says that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT.

----------
COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND, Sir William Blackstone, 1765,
BOOK THE FIRST, OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

----------
Q) As we have seen this is a footnoted passage of Toullier, a French
jurist, not Bouvier.
----------

And as we have seen, Bouvier INCLUDED this passage in his institutes
of American law to DEMONSTRATE how the word PERSON is APPLIED to men,
women and children and that APPLICATION being a CHARACTER that a man,
woman or child ASSUMES..

>>A PERSON is a CREATION, an ARTIFACT of the law itself and has NO
>>EXISTENCE of ANY KIND outside of the legal sphere. And, consistent
>>with all our references, a PERSON signifies a CHARACTER, a ROLE or
>>PART that is ASSUMED by a man - a LEGAL EXISTENCE. This is how the
>>word person is APPLIED to men, women and children.

----------
Q) Incorrect. Humans without any civil distinctions are natural
persons.
---------

Lying asshole...I mean, it's just one lie after another. You are a
POOR example of our human race. A human without any civil distinctions
is a MAN and his rights are those from his creator.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

----------
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, ..." - Declaration of Independence
----------
". . .all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality. . ." -
John Bouvier
----------

PERSON denotes a STATUS - a RANKING - a POSITION - a STANDING and NOT
EQUALITY.

----------
The Century Dictionary

http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

status (st'tus), n. [< L. status, standing, position, attitude, state:
see state.] 1. Standing or position as regards rank or condition.-- 2.
Position of affairs.--3. In law, the standing of a person before the
law in the class of persons indicated by his or her legal qualities;
the relation fixed by law in which a person stands toward others or
the state. Different writers vary much in the extent of meaning
implied, but in the best usage it includes liberty, citizenship, and
marriage, infancy and majority and wardship or tutelage, and mental
capacity or incapacity according to legal tests. It is rarely if ever
used of any of those relations which are terminable by consent, such
as partnership.
----------
STATUS. The condition of persons. It also means estate, because it
signifies the condition or circumstances in which the owner stands
with regard to his property. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1689.
----------

----------
Q) Bouvier is clear on this point.
----------

Yes he is and he also says that you are nothing but a CRIMINALLY
INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG

>>----------

----------
Q) Well, that's not the point of debate. A man might be judged insane,
jailed or otherwise without the rights and obligations of a person,
natural or otherwise.
----------

It's not the point of debate??? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you
freakin RETARD.

"A man might be judged insane, jailed or otherwise without the rights
and obligations of a person, natural or otherwise."

Hey you FREAKIN RETARD, that's what we've been trying to tell you all
this time !!!!! hahahahahahahahahahaha he finally admits it.

----------

"A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in

society" - John Bouvier
----------

When a man takes on the PERSON (character) of a TAXPAYER he will
UNDERstand to a man who takes on the PERSON (character) of a JUDGE.

As in ROMAN LAW, a PERSON shall DO THIS and DO THAT or GO TO JAIL. If
the law says a PERSON needs a LICENSE to walk down the street, he WILL
get a LICENSE or GO TO JAIL If the law says that a PERSON will RENDER
90% of his wages in the form of INCOME TAX, he WILL RENDER 90% of his
wages or GO TO JAIL.

Your beloved LAW of PERSONS that you so adamantly defend is nothing
but the ENSLAVEMENT of man.

This ENSLAVEMENT being perpetrated by a CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING
SYNDICATE enforced by doughnut eating HIRED GUNS and GOVERNMENT SHILLS
such as yourself..

----------
Q) The question StaR is avoiding is whether or not natural persons are
created by civil law.

They are not.

Bouvier is clear on this point.
----------

You can repeat this lie all you want SLIMEBALL, it ain't going make it
so.

----------

"A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in

society" - John Bouvier
----------

The SOCIETY he speaks of is the CIVIL SOCIETY (state, nation) that has
ADOPTED the ROMAN MUNICIPAL/ CIVIL LAW "without distinction as to the

time when the principles of such law were established or modified."

----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual
consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some
common purpose.

2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or
unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.

3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q. v.) a nation,
(q. v.) or a body politic. (q. v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.

4. In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership. Inst. 3, 26;
Dig. 17, 2 Code, 4, 37.
----------
A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

LAW, CIVIL. The term civil law is generally applied by way of eminence
to the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire, without
distinction as to the time when the principles of such law were
established or modified. In another sense, the civil law is that
collection of laws comprised in the institutes, the code,
and the digest of the emperor Justinian, and the novel constitutions
of himself and some of his successors. Ersk. Pr. L. Scotl. B. 1, t.
l, s. 9; 6 L. R. 494.

----------
Q) As we will see StaR will try to disprove this truth by pulling his
usual three card monte trick and pretending that the civil
distinctions heaped upon a 19th century woman can be applied to a
modern natural person, or woman, who is not married.

He will do a very good job of proving to us that an artificial person
is artificial.

Duh?
----------

Artificial? Hahahahahaha so now women are considered as "artificial
persons" and not "natural persons"????? hahahahahahahahahaha you don't
know what you're saying anymore hugh FREAK hahahahaha too funny.

----------

"PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are

called natural persons." - John Bouvier
----------

>>
>>This from the maxim of law....
>>
>>Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim. "Every person is a man, but
>>not every man a person,"

----------
Q) ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….
----------

You poor SAP...has to pull a Fred when faced with his own
fallacy...natural person = human being...just not all of
them...hahahaha

>>
>>When the law addresses an INDIVIDUAL, the reference is to a SINGLE
>>PERSON not a man.
>>

----------
Q) A curious response since in both the Kennedy and Warman cases the
judges clearly said they were addressing natural persons.

Duh?
----------

Duh

On the Kennedy case...

rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.

His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
Sedgwick J.
----------

Whether it is a red, yellow, black, natural, artificial....the subject
is a PERSON and this is what you are running from.

----------
Q) Sad, just sad. If the reader wants to turn his or eyes away I
wouldn't blame them.

StaR is citing a 147 year old civil distinction, which not only
doesn't apply to the point being argued, but it is a citation of old
inapplicable law.

I guess StaR missed the women's rights movement?
----------

You freakin loser, I'm quoting A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE
SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION by John Bouvier

Lie lie lie you bastard

>>Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
>>
>>"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
>>very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
>>marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the
>>husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every
>>thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."
>>----------

----------
Q) Oh, man, the boy is doing it again! He is citing a civil
distinction that creates an artificial person and not the natural
distinctions that define the differences between natural persons.
----------

You lying sack of shit....WE ARE TALKING about the FACT that a PERSON
is simply a LEGAL EXISTENCE, one that can be SUSPENDED - INCORPORATED
- CONSOLIDATED into that of another to create but ONE PERSON. And
THANK YOU for finally admitting that it is the LAW that creates and
DICTATES the PERSON you freakin WEIRDO. You are such a freak, you
don't even realize that you just shot yourself in the foot. You are
such a fool.

----------
Q) Besides being old law. StaR is citing a civil distinction that
creates an artificial person and not the natural distinctions that
define the differences between natural persons.
----------

IDIOT. We are talking about the fact that a human being had NO
SEPERATE LEGAL EXISTENCE which exposes your lie that a "natural"
person is a human being when in fact it is a LEGAL EXISTENCE, a
CHARACTER, a LEGAL PERSONALITY, an ENTITY created by the law that has
no existence outside of the law. One that can be SUSPENDED -
INCORPORATED - CONSOLIDATED into that of another.

>>
>>----------
>>A LAW DICTIONARY
>>
>>by John Bouvier
>>
>>PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are
>>called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly
>>synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of
>>society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be
>>his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank
>>he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds
>>entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
>>----------
>>
>>Now lets look at the fallacy....
>>
>>Natural person = human being
>>
>>At law, the woman was not a human being. Her human being was MERGED
>>into that of the husband's human being. The law now considered them as
>>one human being, that human being is the male human being. Because
>>she wasn't a human being she had no right to contract, to sue or be
>>sued.
>>
>>This is according to our resident operative Rayder, Austin. A little
>>RETARDED isn't it??? lol

----------
Q) No, in old law a WIFE was an artificial person subject to the rules
and distinctions of civil law.
----------

The wife was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON ???? hahahahahahahaha

Someone stick a fork into this pig. I believe he is done.
hahahahahahaha an ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

Freakin moron, it was the ENTIRETY that was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON which
by the way you dismissed a while back when I said that a family unit
was a CORPORTION - an ARTIFICIAL PERSON with the GOVERNMENT as the
THIRD PARTY.

----------
" Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the
husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E.
146.
----------

----------
Q) Our boy just proved the wrong conclusion and is too stupid to know
it!
-----

And oh how it looks good on you with all that egg on your face.

You truly are a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG.

----------
Q) Please make the boy stop. I am laughing too hard!!!!!
----------

Hahahahaha our poor government shill is forced to look like a COMPLETE
IDIOT hahahahahaha too much.

>And so our mentally challenged operative maintains that a WOMEN was
>not a human being therefore she had NO RIGHT to contract, to sue or be
>sued. He also maintains that when a woman married, her human being was
>somehow MERGED with his human being thus creating a single human
>being, that human being his human being. After all, at law, they were
>considered as one PERSON.
>

----------
Q) As we can see I said nothing of the sort.

Women are natural persons.
----------

That's EXACTLY what you're saying when you state that a "natural"
person is a human being and not an artifact of the law - a LEGAL
EXISTENCE - an ENTITY that has NO EXISTENCE outside of the legal
sphere - a LEGAL PERSONALITY - a CHARACTER that is ASSUMED by a man or
women. A LEGAL EXISTENCE that can be MERGED into ANOTHER.

You're done you CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG..

----------
Q) What StaR did was cite the old law that made women into wives,
artificial persons, and then pretend that the state of civil marriage
is a natural state and then put those words in my mouth, the lying
dog!
----------

SHE HAD NO SEPERATE LEGAL EXISTENCE hahahahahaha so how can she be an
ARTIFICIAL PERSON??? hahahahaha this freakin baffoon is tripping all
over himself trying to get out of his lies hahahahaha

Again, it was the ENTIRITY that was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

-----------

The abolition in Tennessee of the common-law disability of coverture
does not abolish the estate of tenancy by the entirety, but does strip
it of the common-law restrictions on and deprivation of the rights of
married women. Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn.
1974).
----------

>Hahahaha it's bad enough that he runs away from the evidence that

>shows him that he is wrong, he insists that the above is correct.

----------
Q) You wish I would run, old son. You're getting your ass kicked here,
sonny. The lie you are telling to cover your last lie has been outed.

Just let me know when you have had enough.
----------

hahahaha speaking of ousting....when are you going to come out of the
closet fagboy????

And a WIFE was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON hahahahahahahahahaha

>I would like to start a special fund to get this idiot some medical
>attention as it is obvious that he is falling apart at the seams and
>is in dire need of a head doctor.

Donations are now being accepted. Send them to Austin
Ray...@hotmail.com

hahahahahaha

>StaR
>

F-A-C-T

Application

Go see what all the fuss is about. Learn the reasons why our RESIDENT
goons are so preoccupied in doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to discredit FACTS
that exposes them as TRAITORS to the Canadian and American peoples.

It's called DetaxCanada
http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm

Here are some quotes from the opening page...

----------

Just Say "NO!" To
INCOME TAX
************
©DetaxCanada®

-----------
THE PROVEN DETAX PROGRAM
(16 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE USAGE)

THAT TEACHES YOU HOW TO:

* QUIT FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS

* QUIT PAYING INCOME TAX
[ IN CANADA ]

* NULLIFY CCRA (Rev Can)
ASSESSMENTS AND LEVIES

PERMANENTLY - EFFECTIVELY - LAWFULLY
----------
There has been a TRESPASS UPON YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY by an
act (or acts) of FRAUD perpetrated by Federal Government of Canada.

You have had a contract imposed upon you in violation of basic
contract law and in violation of the Statute of Frauds (Br. A.D.
1677).

This imposed contract then "OUTLAWED" you in violation of Section 39
of the Magna Carta (A.D.1215 - Revised A.D. 1225);
and thus, unlawfully removed your Sovereign Status.

DETAXCANADA IS ABOUT RECOVERING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF YOUR RIGHTFUL
SOVEREIGN STATUS.

As King John learned in 1215 AD, we realize that "sovereignty" is a
relative - not an absolute condition.

THE ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX, AND ASSOCIATED HASSLES, IS A
SECONDARY ISSUE
----------
CANADA, A COUNTRY WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION

A booklet by: Walter F. Kuhl, Social Credit M.P. Jasper-Edson
1935-1949

Learn many startling facts about Canada which are not taught in the
Canadian educational system - And certainly not mentioned by the
controlled news media

Fact: Canada has NO crown and NO throne - The British Queen, in
claiming to be the Queen of Canada, is a fraud, a hoax and a pretender

Fact: No British Monarch has any right to rule Canada since the death
of Queen Victoria.

Fact: Canada was NEVER confederated in 1867; nor, has it been at
anytime since.

Fact: The Parliament of Canada was a British "club" [without Roman
personhood, or status as a "body politic"] which has usurped the
authority to be the hoax Federal Government of the imaginary country
called Canada.

Fact: The imaginary country called Canada has no authentic
constitution, nor has it an authentic national flag - both are a hoax.
----------
A Word About The Price Of My Detax Program . . .

The DetaxCanada program is FREE!

This is NOT a commercial venture.
----------
WE NEED A CANADIAN MAGNA CARTA

The "detax" method of "Just Say NO!" is one of several "NOs" we need
to use in the Mahatma Ghandi method of confronting and defeating this
despotic and impostor government; and, to regain our sovereign status
as Sons of God living on planet Earth.

Learning about the Common Law, and our Common Law heritage is a
definite requirement for those Canadians who would participate in the
recovery of our Canada as a free country for ourselves and our
posterity.
----------
The assumed incorporation contract with the Crown changing your status
to a person - a fictional character, and thus a "taxpayer", is a
"voidable" contract that ceases to exist if a subject Canadian uses
lawful methods to void that voidable contract.
----------
WARNING!!

YOU ARE CARRYING AROUND IN YOUR WALLET OR PURSE A SIGNED CONFESSION OF
GUILT ADMITTING TO THE CRIME OF THEFT

When you signed for your "driver's license" at the provincial
registry, you entered a "GUILTY" plea into the public record.

Your "driver's license" is a signed confession for a felony called
"theft".
----------

Incredible!!! Check it out today.

DetaxCanada
http://www.detaxcanada.org/index1.htm

StaR

unread,

Feb 27, 2003, 11:48:23 PM2/27/03

Have you heard? A wife is an ARTIFICIAL PERSON!!!!! hahahaha

Well Eldon, he just removed all doubts that he is nothing but a
CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG here to PROTECT the LEGAL PLUNDER
he calls INCOME TAX and to PROMOTE the ENSLAVEMENT OF MAN by PERSON
status.

Take care Eldon and God bless you my friend.

StaR

unread,

Feb 28, 2003, 12:18:24 AM2/28/03

No, you're just another CRIMINALLY INSANE EXTORTIONIST.

StaR

Ron

unread,

Feb 28, 2003, 1:44:49 AM2/28/03

StaR <Sta...@kissmyass.com> wrote in message news:<l6ls5vgr6bcmuegdc...@4ax.com>...

> >"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ?Person,? in its

> >primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
> >played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
> >pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
> >amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
> >by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
> >was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part
> >he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the
> >emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
> >personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
> >which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
> >afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
> >to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
> >character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
> >his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
> >part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
> >jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
> >person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
> >society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1
> >

> >Bouvier?s Institutes, note 1.

HAHA! Poor Squirmy. No matter how hard he argues he *always* ends up
validating the information that you and Eldon have presented.

I congratulate both you and Eldon on your labours performed for the
rest of us.

As for starting a fund to hire a battalion of shrinks to have a go at
Squirmy, it would be a waste of money.

Conceived and certificated as a PERSON (aka TAXPAYER) in the same
instant, Squirmy was then lobotomized shortly after emerging from
momma's tummy.

> >diminished leading to what was known as the ?free marriage?, husband

> >and wife could agree upon.
> >
> >However, even in this new situation, the husband had the right to make
> >the final decisions in all questions concerning the family: for
> >instance the place of residence which the wife had to share with him,
> >the education of the children, the exclusive rights on her wifely
> >duties, while the husband himself could make love to other women with
> >impunity.
> >
> >The rights of women in general Civil Roman Law
> >
> >Although the woman was considered a Roman citizen, she obtained her
> >position only through her husband. Neither slaves nor women could
> >carry their own name. Only men carried this distinct sign of their
> >being a Roman citizen.
> >

> >The general law was: ?In many sections of our law the condition of
> >women is weaker than that of men?.

> >
> >Moreover, the woman was excluded from all public functions and rights:

> >?Women are excluded from all civil and public functions and therefore

> >can neither be judges nor carry any civil authority, they cannot
> >bring a court case, nor intercede for someone else nor act as

> >mediators?.
> >
> >The woman could not have charge of another person. ?Tutela virile
> >officium est? . She could not have patronage of her children and

> >cousins (except in later Roman law).
> >
> >Women could function as witnesses, whether at the drawing up of a last

> >will, or in any other form of law. ?The woman is incapable of being a
> >witness in any form of jurisprudence where witnesses are required?.

> >Women were reckoned with minors, slaves, the dumb and criminals to be
> >incapable of being witnesses.
> >
> >Women could not start a court case without being represented by a man.

> >Women cannot represent themselves in law ?because of the infirmity of

> >their sex and because of their ignorance about matters pertaining to

> >public life?.

Quantrell

unread,

Feb 28, 2003, 6:47:27 AM2/28/03

Readers,

I am beginning to question StaR's stability. Below we will see our
resident cut and paste fool repeating arguments that have already been
refuted, reposting incorrectly cited quotes, citing old inapplicable
law and worst of all trying to slide a childish logical fallacy by us.

In the interest of brevity I have edited some of StaR's post. If you
are interested in seeing his screed in its entirety you can go to the
post at the start of this thread.

----------------

StaR) It's not only what you don't know that hurts you, it's

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

Q) StaR, we have already covered this ground on another thread. You

avoid the real argument with sophistry.

Bouvier says, "Men, women and children, who are called natural
persons. . ."

". . .all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality. . ."

Yet your boy, Eldon, says, ". . [a] .'natural person' describes a man

who has been changed in status to a fictional character."

Simply put. . . the seminal argument of detaxing is wrong as a fact of
law.

StaR) "139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an

equality, yet there are among them marked natural differences. The
distinctions of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from
nature.

THE CIVIL OR MUNICIPAL LAWS HAVE ADDED DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE PURELY
CIVIL AND ARBITRARY. [snip]

Q) This ground has also been covered. A natural person is not, by
definition the subject of these civil distinctions.

Bouvier is clear on this point.

If you would accept this truth you would save us all from suffering
your machinations.

StaR) A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

[snip]

Q) Since natural persons are not created by civil law this babble is
pointless.

StaR) "The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,'

in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which
actors, who played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their
heads. These pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in
Such vast amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make
himself heard by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head
of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which
represented the Part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the
opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more
resounding, vox personabat, when the name persona was given to the
instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The
name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself which the
actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted
to the age and character of him who was considered as speaking, and
sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last sense of
personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word
persona is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man,
homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of the
man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering
the individual". 1

Bouvier's Institutes, note 1.

Q) As we have seen this is a footnoted passage of Toullier, a French
jurist, not Bouvier.

I think our boy is losing it!

StaR) A PERSON is a CREATION, an ARTIFACT of the law itself and has NO

EXISTENCE of ANY KIND outside of the legal sphere. And, consistent
with all our references, a PERSON signifies a CHARACTER, a ROLE or
PART that is ASSUMED by a man - a LEGAL EXISTENCE. This is how the

word person is APPLIED to men, women and children. [snip]

Q) Incorrect. Humans without any civil distinctions are natural
persons.

Bouvier is clear on this point.

StaR) Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.

Person: "...not every human being is a person."

Q) Well, that's not the point of debate. A man might be judged insane,

jailed or otherwise without the rights and obligations of a person,
natural or otherwise.

The question StaR is avoiding is whether or not natural persons are
created by civil law.

They are not.

Bouvier is clear on this point.

As we will see StaR will try to disprove this truth by pulling his

usual three card monte trick and pretending that the civil
distinctions heaped upon a 19th century woman can be applied to a
modern natural person, or woman, who is not married.

He will do a very good job of proving to us that an artificial person
is artificial.

Duh?

StaR) This from the maxim of law....

Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim. "Every person is a man, but
not every man a person,"

Q) ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….

StaR) When the law addresses an INDIVIDUAL, the reference is to a
SINGLE
PERSON not a man. [snip]

Q) A curious response since in both the Kennedy and Warman cases the
judges clearly said they were addressing natural persons.

Duh?

StaR) . . . .The Union of Person

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to meet Mr. and Mrs. Austin Rayder.

Yes, rumor has it that our operative is gay but we'll give him the
benefit of the doubt for our discussion.

So what exactly does that mean.. MR. and MRS Austin Rayder (husband's
name)?

Now remember the argument...

Austin Rayder (operative) says...natural person = a human being.

StaR says natural person = a legal existence created by the law which
has no existence outside of the legal sphere, a fictitious entity, a
character assumed by a human being (a legal personality).

Well, lets look at the following....

American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections 1-9, "Husband and Wife", Lawyers
Cooperative Publishing, New York (1995).

Q) Aside from the fact that StaR may have altered this passage as he
has so many others, his argument is useless since he is citing a civil

distinction that creates an artificial person and not the natural
distinctions that define the differences between natural persons.

In essence, our resident shit head is telling us that an artificial
person is artificial because he, or she is artificial. He is merely
stating his premise as his conclusion.

Cutandpasteboy has put up so much bullshit he has forgotten what he is
talking about!

StaR) A Law Dictionary

by John Bouvier

PARTIES, contracts. Those persons who engage themselves to do, or not
to do the matters and things contained in an agreement.

Q) Sad, just sad. If the reader wants to turn his or eyes away I
wouldn't blame them.

StaR is citing a 147 year old civil distinction, which not only
doesn't apply to the point being argued, but it is a citation of old
inapplicable law.

I guess StaR missed the women's rights movement?

StaR) Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Q) Oh, man, the boy is doing it again! He is citing a civil

distinction that creates an artificial person and not the natural
distinctions that define the differences between natural persons.

This is a logical fallacy that the poorly reasoning StaR can't get
past.

He is using his argument to prove the wrong conclusion!

StaR) A Law Dictionary [pointless bullshit snipped]

Pretty straight forward folks!!!!

Q) Yes, if one didn't see you palm the card (read: lie).

StaR) As far as the LAW was concerned, the woman had NO separate LEGAL
EXISTENCE (person). Her legalexistence WAS MERGED into that the the

husband (his person). At LAW they were considered as O-N-E
P-E-R-S-O-N, that person being the HUSBAND. She had NO CAPACITY to
CONTRACT for herself, or to SUE or be SUED.

Q) Besides being old law. StaR is citing a civil distinction that

creates an artificial person and not the natural distinctions that
define the differences between natural persons.

StaR) A LAW DICTIONARY

by John Bouvier

Now lets look at the fallacy....

Q) This is going to be good. LOL!!!!!!

StaR). . .Natural person = human being

At law, the woman was not a human being. Her human being was MERGED

into that of the husband's human being. . . .

Q) No, in old law a WIFE was an artificial person subject to the rules
and distinctions of civil law.

Our boy just proved the wrong conclusion and is too stupid to know it!

StaR) The law now considered them as one human being, that human being

is the male human being. Because she wasn't a human being she had no
right to contract, to sue or be sued.

This is according to our resident operative Rayder, Austin. A little
RETARDED isn't it??? lol

Q) Please make the boy stop. I am laughing too hard!!!!!

StaR) And so our mentally challenged operative maintains that a WOMEN
was not a human being therefore she had NO RIGHT to contract, to sue
or be sued. He also maintains that when a woman married, her human

being was somehow MERGED with his human being thus creating a single

human being, that human being his human being. After all, at law, they

were considered as one PERSON.

Q) As we can see I said nothing of the sort.

Women are natural persons.

What StaR did was cite the old law that made women into wives,

artificial persons, and then pretend that the state of civil marriage
is a natural state and then put those words in my mouth, the lying
dog!

StaR) Hahahaha it's bad enough that he runs away from the evidence

that shows him that he is wrong, he insists that the above is correct.

[snip]

Q) You wish I would run, old son. You're getting your ass kicked here,
sonny. The lie you are telling to cover your last lie has been outed.

Just let me know when you have had enough, StaR.

Quantrell

unread,

Feb 28, 2003, 12:18:57 PM2/28/03

StaR <Sta...@kissmyass.com> wrote in message news:<25vs5vg3i94mlbssd...@4ax.com>...

Q 2) The subject of our debate is natural persons.

> ----------
> "I find that a "person" as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act
> includes both a natural person and an artificial person. It follows
> that the applicant is a "person" and a "taxpayer". I also find that
> he is a person "resident" in Canada. Either a corporation or a person
> may be "resident" or, indeed, for other legal purposes "domiciled",
> in Canada or elsewhere. As a "person", the applicant has the, same
> rights and obligations as any other "person" under the Income Tax Act.
> His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and
> the payment of any income tax owing under his returns." - Judge
> Sedgwick J.
> ----------
>
> Again, the SUBJECT is a PERSON as DEFINED in an ACT. That word
> INCLUDES both a natural and artificial person. The judge is very CLEAR
> that the subject is a PERSON when he says ....AS A "PERSON", the
> applicant has....

Q 2) Since the use of the word person in the law exactly comports with
existing law your claim that the statute defines a parson is mere
sophistry.

> Whether it is a red, yellow, black, natural, artificial....the subject
> is a PERSON and this is what you are running from.
>
>
> ----------
> Q) Yet your boy, Eldon, says, ". . [a] .'natural person' describes a
> man who has been changed in status to a fictional character."
> ----------
>
> That's exactly what it is... A PERSON as DEFINED in an ACT. It is the
> ACT that defines it. It exists only by the operation of the act. It is
> the ACT that creates the TERM PERSON along with its APPLICATION. It is
> a LEGAL EXISTENCE.

Q 2) What a hoot! Centuries of law is created in a single statute?

We all know what a natural person is. And we all know you are avoiding
the term's meaning.

Will you next argue that the term has no meaning if it is not defined
in the act? After all you said the term was concocted for the income
tax act in question.

> ----------
> Q) Simply put. . . the seminal argument of detaxing is wrong as a fact
> of law.
> ----------
>
> You are an obnoxious ignoramus who doesn't know how to read let alone
> have the ability of critical thinking.

Q 2) Te fact is every judge who has heard the various detax arguments,
including the "person" lie has rejected them.

That you and Eldon tell the gullible that your argument is not only
legally correct, but effective is a great big fraud.

> >>----------
> >>"139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality,
> >>yet there are among them marked natural differences. The distinctions
> >>of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from nature.
> >>
> >>To these natural qualities, the civil or municipal laws have added
> >>distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the
> >>manners of the people, or the will of the legislature. . .". ---
> >>Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
> >>Bouvier. 1854.
> >>----------
> >>
> >>THE CIVIL OR MUNICIPAL LAWS HAVE ADDED DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE PURELY
> >>CIVIL AND ARBITRARY.
>
> ----------
> Q) This ground has also been covered. A natural person is not, by
> definition the subject of these civil distinctions.
> ----------
>
> You lying sack of shit. The RIGHTS OF PERSONS originates from the
> MUNICIPAL / CIVIL law.

Q 2) Again, that is not the question.

> ----------
> COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND, Sir William Blackstone, 1765,
> BOOK THE FIRST, OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS
>
> "Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is
> right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero, and after him our
> Bracton, has expressed it, janctio jufta, jubens bonefta et prohibits
> contrary; it follow, that the primary and principal objects of the law
> are RIGHTS, and WRONGS."

Q 2) My rights are not from civil law. They are from God. That you
argue otherwise is hypocrisy.

> "Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either,
> first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and
> are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they
> are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or
> things unconnected with his person, which are stiled jura rerum or
> the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private
> wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights,
> concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly,
> public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights,
> affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors."
> ----------
>
> They are not annexed to men....THEY ARE ANNEXED TO THE PERSONS OF MEN.
>
> ----------
> Q) Bouvier is clear on this point.
>
> If you would accept this truth you would save us all from suffering
> your machinations.
> ----------
>
> You are a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG.
>
> The unalienable rights of man are from his creator.
>
> The rights of PERSONS is from the MUNICIPAL/ CIVIL law.

Q 2) LOL!!!! You just shoot yourself in the foot.

Those unalienable rights are conferred by God on who? The artificial
person you say every natural person is with your lie?

No. God confers these rights on natural person, whom you say don't
exist.

Q 2) My position is confirmed by Blackstone and centuries of law
since.

Blackstone tells us that a natural person is as God made us.

Your argument is that civil law is civil law because it is civil law.

You are also trying to tell us that there are no such things as the
natural distinctions Bouvier clearly says can be attributed to natural
persons.

Duh?

> >>The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
> >>
> >>MUNICIPAL - Strictly, this word applies only to what belongs to a
> >>city. Among the Romans, cities were called municipia; these cities
> >>voluntarily joined the Roman republic in relation to their
> >>sovereignty only, retaining, their laws, their liberties, and their
> >>magistrates, who were thence called municipal magistrates. With us
> >>this word has a more extensive meaning; for example, we call
> >>municipal law, not the law of a city only, but the law of the state.
> >>Municipal is used in contradistinction to international; thus we say
> >>an offence against the law of nations is an international offence,
> >>but one committed against a particular state or separate community,
> >>is a municipal offence.
> >>
> >>MUNICIPALITY - The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to
> >>a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its
> >>interests.
> >>----------
> >>
> >>Even Blackstone recognizes that the CIVIL law is the ROMAN LAW or
> >>ROMAN CIVIL LAW.
> >>
> >>"'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law' and 'Roman Civil Law' are convertible
> >>phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence." Black's 3rd p 332.
> >>
> >>And the ROMAN LAW is very clear as to what a PERSON is...

Q 2) Your point is that artificial persons are a result of civil
distinctions?

So? I have never argued otherwise.

The subject is natural persons, whose distinctions are natural!

> >>
> >>----------
> >>Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion
> >>
> >>PERSON: in Roman law a person was a legal entity or party to a
> >>contract while in Roman theater a person described the mask worn by
> >>the actor to play a specific role. Neither usage identifies a person
> >>as a self-conscious being.

Q 2) One has to wonder what you left out to this definition.

You have been caught lying sooooooo many times.

And the subject is natural persons as defined in modern law, not
cherry picked passages form old law posted so as to decieve.

> >>----------
> >>"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
> >>defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
> >>etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
> >>Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
> >>Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on
> >>either side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal
> >>tradition, PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e.,
> >>of the legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to
> >>have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the
> >>legal sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is
> >>systematically ignorant of the biological status of its subjects."
> >>- Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American
> >>Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
> >>----------

> >>"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ?Person,? in its

> >>primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
> >>played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
> >>pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
> >>amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
> >>by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
> >>was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part
> >>he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the
> >>emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
> >>personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
> >>which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
> >>afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
> >>to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
> >>character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
> >>his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
> >>part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
> >>jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
> >>person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
> >>society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1
> >>

> >>Bouvier?s Institutes, note 1.

> >>----------
>
> ----------
> Q) As we have seen this is a footnoted passage of Toullier, a French
> jurist, not Bouvier.
> ----------
>
> And as we have seen, Bouvier INCLUDED this passage in his institutes
> of American law to DEMONSTRATE how the word PERSON is APPLIED to men,
> women and children and that APPLICATION being a CHARACTER that a man,
> woman or child ASSUMES..

Q 2) Mere sophistry used to cover a lie. You never told us this was a
mere footnote in the years you posted it here.

Now you are a fool covering his ignorance with lies

Bouvier is clear about the nature of a natural person and it
contradicts Eldon, plain as day.

> >>A PERSON is a CREATION, an ARTIFACT of the law itself and has NO
> >>EXISTENCE of ANY KIND outside of the legal sphere. And, consistent
> >>with all our references, a PERSON signifies a CHARACTER, a ROLE or
> >>PART that is ASSUMED by a man - a LEGAL EXISTENCE. This is how the
> >>word person is APPLIED to men, women and children.
>
> ----------
> Q) Incorrect. Humans without any civil distinctions are natural
> persons.
> ---------
>
> Lying asshole...I mean, it's just one lie after another. You are a
> POOR example of our human race. A human without any civil distinctions
> is a MAN and his rights are those from his creator.
>
> ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Q 2) Bouvier is clear on this point. That you don't understand is your
problem.

By definition, a natural person without any civil distinctions is free
of the civil law you assume to be laid upon him.

> ----------
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed, ..." - Declaration of Independence
> ----------
> ". . .all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality. . ." -
> John Bouvier
> ----------

Q 2) As I said God created natural persons and conferred upon them
these rights.

Your argument can't stand because it holds that God conferred these
rights upon man's civil creation.

> PERSON denotes a STATUS - a RANKING - a POSITION - a STANDING and NOT
> EQUALITY.

Q 2) Duh! You stupid shit!

Since many of those positions may be natural, as Bouvier clearly
points out, their mere existence can't be presumed to denote status as
an artificial person.

Do you argue that the natural status of a son is artificial?

> ----------
> The Century Dictionary
>
> http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html
>
> status (st'tus), n. [< L. status, standing, position, attitude, state:
> see state.] 1. Standing or position as regards rank or condition.-- 2.
> Position of affairs.--3. In law, the standing of a person before the
> law in the class of persons indicated by his or her legal qualities;
> the relation fixed by law in which a person stands toward others or
> the state. Different writers vary much in the extent of meaning
> implied, but in the best usage it includes liberty, citizenship, and
> marriage, infancy and majority and wardship or tutelage, and mental
> capacity or incapacity according to legal tests. It is rarely if ever
> used of any of those relations which are terminable by consent, such
> as partnership.
> ----------
> STATUS. The condition of persons. It also means estate, because it
> signifies the condition or circumstances in which the owner stands
> with regard to his property. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1689.
> ----------
>
>
> ----------
> Q) Bouvier is clear on this point.
> ----------
>
> Yes he is and he also says that you are nothing but a CRIMINALLY
> INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG

Q 2) You are out of ammo.

Q 2) What you are telling us is that a natural person is defined in
civil law just because an artificial person is.

You are saying natural persons are inventions because civil law
removes the rights and obligations of insane people.

That is a logical fallacy.

You can't think.

> When a man takes on the PERSON (character) of a TAXPAYER he will
> UNDERstand to a man who takes on the PERSON (character) of a JUDGE.
>
> As in ROMAN LAW, a PERSON shall DO THIS and DO THAT or GO TO JAIL. If
> the law says a PERSON needs a LICENSE to walk down the street, he WILL
> get a LICENSE or GO TO JAIL If the law says that a PERSON will RENDER
> 90% of his wages in the form of INCOME TAX, he WILL RENDER 90% of his
> wages or GO TO JAIL.
>
> Your beloved LAW of PERSONS that you so adamantly defend is nothing
> but the ENSLAVEMENT of man.
>
> This ENSLAVEMENT being perpetrated by a CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING
> SYNDICATE enforced by doughnut eating HIRED GUNS and GOVERNMENT SHILLS
> such as yourself..
>
> ----------
> Q) The question StaR is avoiding is whether or not natural persons are
> created by civil law.
>
> They are not.
>
> Bouvier is clear on this point.
> ----------
>
>
> You can repeat this lie all you want SLIMEBALL, it ain't going make it
> so.

Q 2) I am telling the truth. You are lying.

>
> ----------
> "A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in
> society" - John Bouvier
> ----------
>
> The SOCIETY he speaks of is the CIVIL SOCIETY (state, nation) that has
> ADOPTED the ROMAN MUNICIPAL/ CIVIL LAW "without distinction as to the
> time when the principles of such law were established or modified."

Q 2) Duh! You stupid shit!

As Bouvier clearly points out, the mere existence of civil
distinctions can't be presumed to somehow make a natural person
artificial.

In effect you argue that the natural status of a son is artificial
because naming of the executor of an estate in a matter of civil law.

Q 2) You have tied yourself in a lying knot, sonny! You just showed us
the civil law that made it so. Or are you going to say that civil
distinctions create natural persons?

> ----------
> "PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are
> called natural persons." - John Bouvier
> ----------

Q 2) Note he didn't say wives are natural persons. Neither did he say
executors of estates; corporation members or any of a hundred civilly
distinguished persons are "natural persons".

Your hole is getting deeper, loserboy.

> >>
> >>This from the maxim of law....
> >>
> >>Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim. "Every person is a man, but
> >>not every man a person,"
>
> ----------

> Q) ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?????.

Q 2) Nice try. . .not. Using Eldon's argument Kennedy argued that he
WAS a natural person and thus didn't have to pay income taxes.

All the judge is saying is that the act applies to natural as well as
artificial persons.
In the context of the argument given by Kennedy the subject was
natural persons.

You tell a purposeful lie to say otherwise.

You are a fraud.

Q 2) Just like you cite the Dread Scott decision as law. Just like you
cite out of context footnotes as law. Just like you cite overturned
cases as law.

Just like you alter the wording of decisions and say they are law.

> >>Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
> >>
> >>"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
> >>very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
> >>marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the
> >>husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every
> >>thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."
> >>----------
>
> ----------
> Q) Oh, man, the boy is doing it again! He is citing a civil
> distinction that creates an artificial person and not the natural
> distinctions that define the differences between natural persons.
> ----------
>
> You lying sack of shit....WE ARE TALKING about the FACT that a PERSON
> is simply a LEGAL EXISTENCE, one that can be SUSPENDED - INCORPORATED
> - CONSOLIDATED into that of another to create but ONE PERSON. And
> THANK YOU for finally admitting that it is the LAW that creates and
> DICTATES the PERSON you freakin WEIRDO. You are such a freak, you
> don't even realize that you just shot yourself in the foot. You are
> such a fool.

Q 2) Still don't want to talk about natural persons , do ya'?

I can see why. The law and the facts don't back you up.

Eldon says natural persons are fiction.

The law says they are not.

You are wrong.

It is just that simple.

Q 2) Duh? You are citing the creation of an artificial person as proof
that natural persons are what centuries of law says they are not.

The fact is an unmarried woman today with no other civil distinctions
is a natural person.

The fact that old law says her marriage made her "artificial" or that
her role as a modern business corporation officer does the same
doesn't change the fact that natural persons are God's work.

This truth contradicts Eldon's claim that natural persons are fiction.

Q 2) Mere sophistry. And booooooooring.

>
> ----------
> " Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the
> husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E.
> 146.
> ----------
>
>
> ----------
> Q) Our boy just proved the wrong conclusion and is too stupid to know
> it!
> -----
>
> And oh how it looks good on you with all that egg on your face.
>
> You truly are a CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG.

Q 2) Substance, please.

> ----------
> Q) Please make the boy stop. I am laughing too hard!!!!!
> ----------
>
> Hahahahaha our poor government shill is forced to look like a COMPLETE
> IDIOT hahahahahaha too much.

Q 2) Substance, please.

>
>
> >And so our mentally challenged operative maintains that a WOMEN was
> >not a human being therefore she had NO RIGHT to contract, to sue or be
> >sued. He also maintains that when a woman married, her human being was
> >somehow MERGED with his human being thus creating a single human
> >being, that human being his human being. After all, at law, they were
> >considered as one PERSON.
> >
>
> ----------
> Q) As we can see I said nothing of the sort.
>
> Women are natural persons.
> ----------
>
> That's EXACTLY what you're saying when you state that a "natural"
> person is a human being and not an artifact of the law - a LEGAL
> EXISTENCE - an ENTITY that has NO EXISTENCE outside of the legal
> sphere - a LEGAL PERSONALITY - a CHARACTER that is ASSUMED by a man or
> women. A LEGAL EXISTENCE that can be MERGED into ANOTHER.
>
> You're done you CRIMINALLY INSANE LYING FASCIST PIG..

Q 2) You are putting words in my mouth as well as contradicting
yourself.

A natural person is subject to the rule of law. I never said
otherwise.

You should know that because Eldon was so ruled in his assault case. .
.as have a dozen or so like minded fools in the U.S. and Canada.

You can't reconcile that truth with your desire to escape the rule of
law so you invent the notion that governments have concocted a
thousand years of law in a single act and thereby foisted a lie upon
you.

If you would realize that the problem is in your head and not in the
law you'd be able to understand the truth

> ----------
> Q) What StaR did was cite the old law that made women into wives,
> artificial persons, and then pretend that the state of civil marriage
> is a natural state and then put those words in my mouth, the lying
> dog!
> ----------
>
> SHE HAD NO SEPERATE LEGAL EXISTENCE hahahahahaha so how can she be an
> ARTIFICIAL PERSON??? hahahahaha this freakin baffoon is tripping all
> over himself trying to get out of his lies hahahahaha
>
> Again, it was the ENTIRITY that was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

Q 2) Mere word parsing. You say she was joined with her husband when
it suits you and not in existence when that suits you.

Anyway you cut it the union is artificial, a civil distinction that
has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

> -----------
> The abolition in Tennessee of the common-law disability of coverture
> does not abolish the estate of tenancy by the entirety, but does strip
> it of the common-law restrictions on and deprivation of the rights of
> married women. Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn.
> 1974).
> ----------
>
> >Hahahaha it's bad enough that he runs away from the evidence that
> >shows him that he is wrong, he insists that the above is correct.
>
> ----------
> Q) You wish I would run, old son. You're getting your ass kicked here,
> sonny. The lie you are telling to cover your last lie has been outed.
>
> Just let me know when you have had enough.
> ----------
>
> hahahaha speaking of ousting....when are you going to come out of the
> closet fagboy????

Q 2) Substance, please.

>
> And a WIFE was an ARTIFICIAL PERSON hahahahahahahahahaha

Q 2) You just said so and will say so again.

> >I would like to start a special fund to get this idiot some medical
> >attention as it is obvious that he is falling apart at the seams and

>>is in dire need of a head doctor. [snip]

Q 2) The fact is you are projecting Warman and your insanity on to me.

>
> F-A-C-T
>
> At law, the word PERSON or "natural" PERSON (as it relates to man) is

> APPLIED to men, women and children. [snip]

Q 2) It occurs to me that if Warman had paid as much attention to his
real wife as he has to filling your head with this nonsense about
wives we would have to suffer his lies.

> >>Recap....
> >>
>
> By becoming a NON-PERSON (see www.detaxcanada.org), you are NOT
> recognized (jurisdiction) in the eyes of the law and ALL PREVIOUS
> CONTRACTS ARE ANNULLED. But then again, we are dealing with a
> CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING SYNDICATE and their doughnut eating
> HIRED GUNS.

Q 2) As the judge told Eldon one can't contract away his state as a
natural person.

That is a fact of law

> >>----------
> >>Newbury House Dictionary of American English
> >>
> >>non-per·son n. a person whom the government seeks to make nonexistent
> >>by banishing him or her from public life and removing all mention of
> >>him or her from public records: The scientist became a nonperson in
> >>his country after criticizing the government.
> >>----------
> >>
> >>In 1839, some of the states began making statutory changes in the law
> >>by granting married women increased legal rights, in other words.
> >>giving her a separate LEGAL EXISTENCE as the acts (operation of the
> >>law) obligated the courts to recognize a husband and a wife as two
> >>separate legal entities, TWO separate PERSONS, that is.... LIBERTY of

> >>PERSON (and she gets to be a TAX SLAVE too). [snip]

Q 2) This has nothing to do with detaxing or Eldon's bogus claim that
one can sever a contact of citizenship with government.

Detaxers may as well argue that centuries old law that allow the
commitment of the insane (another example of "unpersoning") means they
can contract out of something that never was contractual in the first
place.

They may as well argue that society's refusal to give minors the
rights and obligations of adults means a grown man, like Eldon, can
punch out a traffic cop, cheat on his taxes and get away with it.

0 new messages