When i say what is a person what do you think? Probably you think about how to decribe yourself the flesh and blood human. Right? What if i told you everything you have ever been told is a lie? WAIT!!! Dont Go!!! Dont think im some crazy nut job with a tin foil hat on. I have no reason to lie to you.
I want nothing from any of you just the right to choose the path i choose. With authority over no breathing creatures and none on me. With no laws of mans government only gods law, the common law, the law of the land, the best way i can describe it is "DBAA" Dont be an asshole. Im not asking to be free to do what ever i want kill who ever i want. I just want liberty and as much as i want until it infrenges on the liberty of another. When i read the Declaration of Independence i read about that liberty. The further i read from the Declaration the less i see that utopia and i see debt hungry war machine and a complete mockery of the Republic our founders invisioned.
So the title of this blog post is what is a person? But the question should be in the name of liberty how does the US government define a person?
Firstly i must give credit where credit is due i pulled the quotes from http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixD.htm but i did source each of these to read the context each may or may not have been under. I only mention it because the work was so well put together and when we start to define a Citizen, Person and "the People" the word context is an understatement.
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."......
Lets get this straight the word person is not an individual but a status, condition or character borne by physical persons.
Lets let webster break this down.
Status:
the position or rank of someone or something when compared to others in a society, organization, group, etc.
: high position or rank in society
: the official position of a person or thing according to the law
Condition:
a way of living or existing
: the state in which something exists : the physical state of something
: the physical or mental state of a person or animal
Character:
the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality
: a set of qualities that are shared by many people in a group, country, etc.
: a set of qualities that make a place or thing different from other places or things
Borne:
carried by : spread by
Does any of that say flesh and blood human to you?
No to the non law school but ultimately concentor to be governed eyes it says to me they are trying to define the exact opposite
But what does American Law and procedure know?
In the United States the people are sovereign over their public servants:
Romans 6:16 (NIV): "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey ..."
Next
1794
US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
"... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
Next
1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."
Next
US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:
"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..."
Next
US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421:
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
Over and over again its the same sovereignry resides with the people for many years it was like this and defined as such. Webster’s Dictionary, “sovereign” is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to ,original and independent authority or jurisdiction
In other words our government was created by and for “sovereigns” the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence where we read: “government is subject to the consent of the governed” that’s supposed to be us the sovereigns.
So how did all this happen and i will let the folks at liberty beacon explain
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/when-the-united-states-became-a-corporation/
To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is “America” — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a “free” people or not.
So, let’s roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn’t teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you’ll stay awake for this lesson.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let’s look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated “front” for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed
From that point on rulings we stary to be handed down in cases such as these
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
And
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):
"Since in common usage the term person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." And US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941): "Since in common usage the termperson' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
And
US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:
"Since in common usage, the term person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." And U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: "In common usage the wordperson' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."
And
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:
"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1.
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions
(15) “United States” means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
I know some will say its just a lot of copy and paste but in reality i only put the government own words from there own white papers and a summary of the act of 1871 which is shorter and does more justice then i could do at this point. Im not putting this out there for you to believe me. I just want you to do your own research because telling me im full of it and not at least takeing a look is the sort of willful ignorance and slient concent is what got us into this mess from the start.