|
Real0ne -> RE: "Personhood" movement is Christian-Sharia Law... (9/15/2011 8:33:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST “MAN” OR “WOMAN” – THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE LEGISLATIVE STATUTES!!!
Gee, I could have sworn that men and women were "individuals."
K.
Every "legal entity" is a "person". The person belongs to the one that created it. The person is a transmitting utility, designated to perform a special duty or fulfill a specific purpose, unattached from it's creator/owner. <- of course the only one in the world that is respected in law is the king.
quote:
"The law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will.
[It, the legal entity is an "IT" not a man or woman. So if your IT is the legal entity yet they throw your body in prison if the "it" stood trial and not you? Hey its "their" distinction not mine! LOL]
This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
See what they did here? LOL
In law, PERSONALITY means capacity of having, acquiring and exercising rights, using the term in its widest sense. A legal person is an entity having interest which the law recognizes and secures, or, as it is commonly put, a subject of rights. The type is the individual human being, as a natural person, and in modern law every human being, as a natural person has also a legal personality. Juristic personality begins when the legal requirements for recognition of a group of associates as a legal person have been fulfilled, and the law in consequence clothes the association with the capacity of exercising a legal control over or influence upon the acts of others. Natural personality, the legal personality of the individual human being, begins upon birth and survival of birth.
This is all color of law. In other words abstract bullshit for the most part. Capacity determines rank essentially of your legal person.
Now title 18 defines those who presumably "chose" to be under the control and subject to the united states corporate "person".
quote:
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsionor extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000008----000-.html
Of course it goes without saying they have no legitimate authority to claim or define anyone as a person.
Legitimate authority comes by contract.
the word individual in "lego land" is used to differentiate between body corporate and body singular.
The rights spoke of in the DOI are largely disposed of when you enter into contract under tha constitution which of course the "state" claims they have have the right to force you to do, see the abrahamson case.
.
[image]local://upfiles/59055/21E2FE6243E24C69B5EF3DB18600F2D3.jpg[/image] oh and "Chief" has the same rank as KING, such as the commander "in-chief", chief's and kins are "recognized" sovereigns.
Neither of whom are personally suable, you can only sue one of their corporation trusts.
birthers you reading this?
|
|
|
|
