PDA

View Full Version : FREEMAN def- Spiritual being NOT human being!


vienna
08-01-2009, 10:53 AM
acording to law.com dictionary

Person is defined as:
1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the ... etc

LINK:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=person&type=1&submit1.x=50&submit1.y=16

they gave no definition of 'human being' however in Ballantine's Law dictionary
'human being' is defined as 'monster'

'monster' is further defined as:
a human being by birth but in some part resembling a lower animal ... a monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit brought forth in marriage


goto 31 minutes into this Jordan Maxwell vid 'occult world of commerce"
(a must see vid for anyone approaching Freeman information for the first time)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1697805906900297328

spiritual being however cannot be found in Ballantine's Law dictionary - so in the civil/UCC/maritime admiralty fiction bullshit world it does not exist

this is why Freemen must define themselves as Spirtual beings NOT human beings

anyone agree?

boots
08-01-2009, 12:23 PM
Yes i would agree. There is not a reference to spiritual being in Blacks Law Dictionary.


.

pleasuredome
08-01-2009, 12:54 PM
i agree too, good thread!

yozhik
08-01-2009, 12:57 PM
BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY
A LAW DICTIONARY WITHOUT PRONUNCIATIONS
JAMES A. BALLANTINE

THIRD EDITION

Page 572.
human. Of the form and characteristics of man.
human being. A person, male or female.

Page 769.
man. In the generic sense, a human being, whether male or female; all human beings; mankind. In the narrow sense, a male human being who has reached the age of majority, at least an age above puberty. State v Seder, 106 Wis 343, 82 NW 167.

Pages 939, 940.
person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30). An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation. 18 Am J2d Corp § 20. Inclusive of bodies politic and corporate. Waterbury v Board of Com. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002. As used in the Bankruptcy Act, inclusive of corporations, officers, partnerships, and women, except where otherwise specified. Bankruptcy Act § 1(23); 11 USC § 1(23). Under the negotiable Instruments Law, an individual or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law § 191. As used in the anti-trust laws, inclusive of corporations and associations. 36 Am J1st Monop etc § 186. Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic § 49. Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax § 318. Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure. 56 Am J1st W & L § 5. Inclusive of corporations in a pure food law. State v Belle Springs Creamery Co. 83 Kan 389, 111 P 474. For the purposes of the due process clause, either a citizen or an alien. 3 Am J2d Aliens § 8. For the purposes of extradition, either a citizen or an alien. 31 Am J2d Extrad § 17.
A corporation is deemed a "person" within the meaning of the statute of limitations, and consequently, the statute ordinarily runs against corporations and domestic corporations are generally included within the class of persons who may plead the statute, and they may, as a general rule, acquire title by adverse possession for the statutory period in the same manner and to the same extent as an individual. 34 Am J1st Lim Ac § 372. A municipal corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the statute of limitations. 34 Am J1st Lim Ac § 397.
Liquor license laws may either expressly permit, or be held susceptible of a construction which authorizes corporations to be licensed thereunder, and the word "person," as used in such legislation, is usually held to embrace a corporation, irrespective of whether there is an express provision to that effect in the license law or in general law. 30 Am J Rev ed Intox L § 126.
The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation, so as to bring corporations within the prohibition of the statute. 19 Am J2d Corp § 1436.
Dependent upon the entire context of the instrument, the word "person," as used in a will, may or may not include a corporation. 57 Am J1st Wills § 1326.

I have seen this definition of "human being = monster" referred to a number of times, but have never been able to see it at source. The above definitions are directly from Ballantine's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition.
Of interest is the highlighted definition and clarifier/specifier for person.

The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation, so as to bring corporations within the prohibition of the statute. 19 Am J2d Corp § 1436.

Black's 5th, Page 687.
include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within.) To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.

In simple terms it says that whenever the word person is used in a statute which specifies a crime, it refers specifically to a corporation, so that the corporation can be bought within its jurisdiction.
So if you're not a corporation, a criminal statute does not apply to you. However, this may also be requalified within the Definitions or Interpretations of the specific statute.

Ballantine's 3rd, Page 1006.
prohibition. A remedy the purpose of which is to prevent a tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial powers from exercising jurisdiction over matters not within its cognizance, or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. Anno: 77 ALR 246

vienna
08-01-2009, 01:06 PM
great stuff yozhik

I got the monster definition from the slide used in this link - it looks like a page from the dictionary with highlights

goto 31 minutes into this Jordan Maxwell vid 'occult world of commerce"
(a must see vid for anyone approaching Freeman information for the first time)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1697805906900297328

also do you have Black's 5th and Ballentine we can download from somewhere or even as a pdf or text doc??

cheers matey

1694
08-01-2009, 01:08 PM
Yoz I would, and so would a court room, interpret:

The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation, so as to bring corporations within the prohibition of the statute. 19 Am J2d Corp § 1436.

As to mean corporations are also accountable to the same statutes as human beings.

It's like saying "The word "Team" includes the coaches and managers", would you interpret that to mean the players are specifically excluded?

(I promised myself to abandon this whole thing but come on....)

yozhik
08-01-2009, 01:22 PM
Yoz I would, and so would a court room, interpret:

The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation, so as to bring corporations within the prohibition of the statute. 19 Am J2d Corp § 1436.

As to mean corporations are also accountable to the same statutes as human beings.

It's like saying "The word "Team" includes the coaches and managers", would you interpret that to mean the players are specifically excluded?

(I promised myself to abandon this whole thing but come on....)

1694 ... this is a great question and highlights the difference between language you and I use as opposed to legalese.

In general, the word "includes" in a legal context is inclusive.
Including is expansive; includes is limiting.

Example; (basic, but to highlight a point)

Introduction: This statute is to limit the life of cats.

Section 1
a) all white cats will be exterminated on the first Friday of March.

Definitions
"cat" refers to domestic cats, including dogs and birds.
"white" includes black, when referring to colour of fur, coat or feathers.

What does it mean?
It means that domestic birds, cats and dogs (including) that are black (includes) in colour, will be exterminated on the first Friday of March.

It might not make (common) sense, it might not be what you and I comprehend it to mean when read, but in legalese, it is what it means.

Did you not take note of how specific the use of "person" was in each of the uses??
Does this not instantly tell you that it is not a generic term?
And where in this plethora of uses to you see it referring to man?

Ballantine's 3rd, Pages 939, 940.
person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30).
An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation. 18 Am J2d Corp § 20.
Inclusive of bodies politic and corporate. Waterbury v Board of Com. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002.
As used in the Bankruptcy Act, inclusive of corporations, officers, partnerships, and women, except where otherwise specified. Bankruptcy Act § 1(23); 11 USC § 1(23).
Under the negotiable Instruments Law, an individual or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law § 191.
As used in the anti-trust laws, inclusive of corporations and associations. 36 Am J1st Monop etc § 186.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic § 49.
Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax § 318.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure. 56 Am J1st W & L § 5.
Inclusive of corporations in a pure food law. State v Belle Springs Creamery Co. 83 Kan 389, 111 P 474.
For the purposes of the due process clause, either a citizen or an alien. 3 Am J2d Aliens § 8.
For the purposes of extradition, either a citizen or an alien. 31 Am J2d Extrad § 17.

1694
08-01-2009, 01:30 PM
Great example ..... I prefer the real one.

Person: a)Human b)corporation treated as having a legal personality

"The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation."

If you think you know that means something it doesn't good luck to you.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Great example ..... I prefer the real one.

Person: a)Human b)corporation treated as having a legal personality

"The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation."

If you think you know that means something it doesn't good luck to you.

This has already been addressed;

In simple terms it says that whenever the word person is used in a statute which specifies a crime, it refers specifically to a corporation, so that the corporation can be bought within its jurisdiction.
So if you're not a corporation, a criminal statute does not apply to you. However, this may also be requalified within the Definitions or Interpretations of the specific statute.


To be clear, if the statute, in its definition, states;

"person" includes corporation.

... then this means it is "limited to" corporations.
As has been clearly shown, the term "person" is NOT generic.
I have posted (twice already, now for a third time) the Ballantine's (3rd edition) definition of "person".

Ballantine's 3rd, Pages 939, 940.
person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30).
An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation. 18 Am J2d Corp § 20.
Inclusive of bodies politic and corporate. Waterbury v Board of Com. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002.
As used in the Bankruptcy Act, inclusive of corporations, officers, partnerships, and women, except where otherwise specified. Bankruptcy Act § 1(23); 11 USC § 1(23).
Under the negotiable Instruments Law, an individual or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law § 191.
As used in the anti-trust laws, inclusive of corporations and associations. 36 Am J1st Monop etc § 186.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic § 49.
Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax § 318.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure. 56 Am J1st W & L § 5.
Inclusive of corporations in a pure food law. State v Belle Springs Creamery Co. 83 Kan 389, 111 P 474.
For the purposes of the due process clause, either a citizen or an alien. 3 Am J2d Aliens § 8.
For the purposes of extradition, either a citizen or an alien. 31 Am J2d Extrad § 17.

This means that you can not assume that the term "person" automatically includes man. "Person" is not a generic term; man is not a default setting, which you imply ad nauseum.
If you do not accept this nor comprehend this, then you have made your choice to go against the evidence and no measure of additional posts or quoted legal definitions will sway you from your course.

1694
08-01-2009, 01:49 PM
person.
An individual

First 2 lines.

vienna
08-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Yoz , don't reply - clearly there are dis info agents put here to keep us in endless debate chasing our tails rather than moving on - I noticed one or two on the 911 boards - and I've been watching this one for some time here too

much like freemen do when replying to Notices - with endless questions to keep the target busy

Ignore him/she/them(I suspect a duo or more using the one login) and let's move on

yozhik
08-01-2009, 01:59 PM
First 2 lines.

No.
You nefariously omitted some words from your selected quote, so as to distort the true meaning to falsely support your assertion.

The first two lines, correctly quoted, are;

person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30).

to clarify ...

Black's 6th, Page 1095

Or, conj. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.

Again, "person" is not a generic term with "man" as its default setting.
If you simply choose to ignore this fact, then good luck to you.

1694 ... if you wish to continue with your futile game, then I suggest you take it up with the publishers of Black's Law Dictionary, Ballantine's Law Dictionary and the judges and administrators that have given the cited rulings. Your "beef" is with them; not me, nor the Freeman concept.

1694
08-01-2009, 02:12 PM
"Dog Or Cat" doesn't mean cat, it means Cat OR Dog. Your definition of OR supports the point. Individual is included as a stand alone, but corporations are also included.

It ius quite simple to understand why corporations are considered persons in the eyes of the law. It is not because all persons are corporations, it is just so that corporations can be sued or held legally accountable. Like wise the govt depts are corporations so you can sue them, not necessarily because they can make a profit.

I'm back out of this, I can't believe I bothered.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 02:22 PM
"Dog Or Cat" doesn't mean cat, it means Cat OR Dog. Your definition of OR supports the point. Individual is included as a stand alone, but corporations are also included.

It ius quite simple to understand why corporations are considered persons in the eyes of the law. It is not because all persons are corporations, it is just so that corporations can be sued or held legally accountable. Like wise the govt depts are corporations so you can sue them, not necessarily because they can make a profit.

I'm back out of this, I can't believe I bothered.

Either can any sane member of this forum!
Your posts are nonsensical and total disinformation.
You are ignoring simple logic and rudimentary grammar.

The facts have been presented.
If you choose to ignore them, then that is your choice.

You have been given official definitions and case references/rulings.
However, it seems that you believe you know better.

Ballantine's 3rd, Pages 939, 940.
person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30).
An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation. 18 Am J2d Corp § 20.
Inclusive of bodies politic and corporate. Waterbury v Board of Com. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002.
As used in the Bankruptcy Act, inclusive of corporations, officers, partnerships, and women, except where otherwise specified. Bankruptcy Act § 1(23); 11 USC § 1(23).
Under the negotiable Instruments Law, an individual or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law § 191.
As used in the anti-trust laws, inclusive of corporations and associations. 36 Am J1st Monop etc § 186.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic § 49.
Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax § 318.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure. 56 Am J1st W & L § 5.
Inclusive of corporations in a pure food law. State v Belle Springs Creamery Co. 83 Kan 389, 111 P 474.
For the purposes of the due process clause, either a citizen or an alien. 3 Am J2d Aliens § 8.
For the purposes of extradition, either a citizen or an alien. 31 Am J2d Extrad § 17.

This means that you can not assume that the term "person" automatically includes "man". "Person" is not a generic term; "man" is not a default setting.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 03:37 PM
great stuff yozhik

also do you have Black's 5th and Ballentine we can download from somewhere or even as a pdf or text doc??

cheers matey

I have personally bought copies of Black's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th editions.

However, I also have downloaded a pdf of Black's 2nd ( 1 large file) and Ballantine's 3rd (26 small files). I can not, for the life of me, remember the original links, but would be more than happy to provide copies for anyone interested. Send me a private message so we can arrange file transfers :D

Ian2day
08-01-2009, 04:07 PM
So should we say that we're sovereign spiritual beings.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 04:24 PM
So should we say that we're sovereign spiritual beings.

What is it that you want to express or achieve?

Black's 6th, Page 1400
Spiritual. Relating to religious or ecclesiastical persons or affairs, as distinguished from "secular" or lay, worldly, or business matters.

Is this the intended meaning?

What about; sovereign man vested with both sentience and sapience. :D

intellection
08-01-2009, 04:32 PM
if i comprehend this correctly:

The word "person," where used in statutes defining crimes, is usually construed to include a corporation, so as to bring corporations within the prohibition of the statute. 19 Am J2d Corp § 1436.

It is the definition of the word 'include' stated to mean "To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve." that cites 'person' to mean a corporation.

I think 1696 is coming from the viewpoint that the definition of 'person' is human being/man/women as standard but can also mean a corporation. i can see his view but agree that in law nothing should be taken as granted.

if this being the case we also need to know the legal definition of 'usually' and 'construed'.

Also, can someone assist as to whether I am reading this definition correctly please?

person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30). An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation.

Does this state that a person is an individual man, woman or child but generally it means a corporation? if this is the case then we should assume that generally person means a corporation unless we have reason/evidence to think otherwise.

i'm really trying to comprehend this concept.
thanks.

ps. i think 1696 is to fully comprehend this concept. it is difficult and people shouldn't be so quick to shout troll which is a form of control to keep people in a box. ie. if you don't conform to my ideas i will use ridicule to keep you in line.

Ian2day
08-01-2009, 04:36 PM
What is it that you want to express or achieve?



Is this the intended meaning?

What about; sovereign man vested with both sentience and sapience. :D

Sovereign puts you on an equal footing with those who control the globe. By making this declaration to the Universe. You're in effect staking a claim to being the ruler of your own entity, whatever form it takes. Therefore as such, a sovereign spiritual being. There is no thing known or unknown which can lay claim unto your being.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 04:45 PM
Also, can someone assist as to whether I am reading this definition correctly please?

person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30). An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation.

Does this state that a person is an individual man, woman or child but generally it means a corporation? if this is the case then we should assume that generally person means a corporation unless we have reason/evidence to think otherwise.

i'm really trying to comprehend this concept.
thanks.


IMHO, that is a logical interpretation.

ps. i think 1696 is to fully comprehend this concept. it is difficult and people shouldn't be so quick to shout troll which is a form of control to keep people in a box. ie. if you don't conform to my ideas i will use ridicule to keep you in line.

I think for reference you need to view 1694's previous posting history to place his modus operandi into context.

Also, repeated ignoring of the following, relevant information ...

Ballantine's 3rd, Pages 939, 940.
person.
An individual or an organization. UCC § 1201(30).
An individual man, woman, or child or, as a general rule, a corporation. 18 Am J2d Corp § 20.
Inclusive of bodies politic and corporate. Waterbury v Board of Com. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002.
As used in the Bankruptcy Act, inclusive of corporations, officers, partnerships, and women, except where otherwise specified. Bankruptcy Act § 1(23); 11 USC § 1(23).
Under the negotiable Instruments Law, an individual or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law § 191.
As used in the anti-trust laws, inclusive of corporations and associations. 36 Am J1st Monop etc § 186.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic § 49.
Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax § 318.
Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure. 56 Am J1st W & L § 5.
Inclusive of corporations in a pure food law. State v Belle Springs Creamery Co. 83 Kan 389, 111 P 474.
For the purposes of the due process clause, either a citizen or an alien. 3 Am J2d Aliens § 8.
For the purposes of extradition, either a citizen or an alien. 31 Am J2d Extrad § 17.

This means that you can not assume that the term "person" automatically includes "man". "Person" is not a generic term; "man" is not a default setting.

... specifically; that which is posted in larger font and contrasting colour for clarity ... when ignored points to true nefarious intent, rather than innocent inability to comprehend.

danster82
08-01-2009, 04:48 PM
This is a good point.

Spirituality itself is about shifting your identity from human to spiritual so yes confirm to corporation that they are addressing a spiritual being.

Very powerful position to be coming from.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 04:53 PM
Sovereign puts you on an equal footing with those who control the globe. By making this declaration to the Universe. You're in effect staking a claim to being the ruler of your own entity, whatever form it takes. Therefore as such, a sovereign spiritual being. There is no thing known or unknown which can lay claim unto your being.

I comprehend your intent ... I merely gave the legal definition of spiritual, which is the "universe" into which the document or claim will be placed and therefore defined.

... if that makes sense.

Short answer; I don't know the answer. :)

intellection
08-01-2009, 04:58 PM
my apologies "1694" not "1696" - the years just seem to fly by :D

i think often peoples intent is inferred to be obstructive when they are in fact just trying to comprehend to their satisfaction.

anyway off topic somewhat - my apologies here also.

Ian2day
08-01-2009, 05:16 PM
If I'm correct, declaring your Strawman bankrupt. Has huge implications for your assigned actions. As a corporation once dissolved, can not be... shh in case anyone works it all out. I really should stop thinking out loud.

yozhik
08-01-2009, 08:04 PM
also do you have Black's 5th and Ballentine we can download from somewhere or even as a pdf or text doc??

cheers matey

OK ... let's see if this works. :)
I have uploaded Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, onto a free server.
Hopefully, this means a pdf file is available for downloading, for whomever would like a copy.

... fingers crossed ... :rolleyes:

blacks_2nd.pdf - 291.77MB

lesactive
08-01-2009, 09:44 PM
I love throwing this wrench into the mix.

"Individual" is an adjective and should be properly employed preceding a noun. It is too ambiguous to be a definitive description of anything, much like "person". I don't care what a dictionary says, legal or otherwise, prove the claim that a man or woman can be an adjective or shhh. For that matter, prove the claim that any one of us are mere words.

I repeat, because this is important: words are notes of things, not the things themselves.

Ian2day
08-01-2009, 10:08 PM
words are notes of things, not the things themselves.


An example of this is here

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48636

hey_jude
09-01-2009, 12:40 PM
I have personally bought copies of Black's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th editions.

However, I also have downloaded a pdf of Black's 2nd ( 1 large file) and Ballantine's 3rd (26 small files). I can not, for the life of me, remember the original links, but would be more than happy to provide copies for anyone interested. Send me a private message so we can arrange file transfers :D

Hi yozhik

please may I have some copies I need to read the Laws. :)

yozhik
09-01-2009, 01:59 PM
Hi yozhik

please may I have some copies I need to read the Laws. :)

I've uploaded Black's 2nd as a pdf.
Hopefully the link works. :rolleyes: ... it's the first time I've tried to do this.
It's on this post Black's pdf download post (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=718029&postcount=25)

hey_jude
09-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Hi Yoz,

Thank you for the link, it was sticky at first but worked the second time, it's a massive file.
I see there are many books/editions are they repeated or updated?

Am I in your debt now? :)

yozhik
09-01-2009, 11:17 PM
Hi Yoz,

Thank you for the link, it was sticky at first but worked the second time, it's a massive file.
Yeah - sorry about that.
Ballantine's, 3rd Edition, is in 26 parts - 1 for each letter of the alphabet. When I have time, I'll upload them and post the 26 links (gulp :eek: ) here for people to download.
I'm sure I also have Bouvier's in txt files - ugly, but useful - as well. Let me see if I can also find that and I will do the same again.

I see there are many books/editions are they repeated or updated?
99% of each edition is simply transferred, but there are some differences/additions/updates in them. I started with the 5th, because it seemed to be the most widely quoted. Then, to be honest, it became "an addiction" and a hobby with a desire to have the full set, merely to collect as a "collection". Especially the 2nd Edition, which is over 100 years old :)

Am I in your debt now? :)
I think we have enough debt in this world, don't you? ;)

vostran
11-01-2009, 12:31 PM
*edit I made a booboo in this post and directed it at the wrong name initially, apolagies.

1694 if you don't mind I'll offer you the benifit of doubt here.

If I were to INCLUDE you in a ROOM then surely my statment EXCLUDES everything not in the room. If this INCLUSION is taken to mean anything but just the thing explicitly included then it's worthelss, as it includes EVERYTHING. It must be EXPLICITLY STATED that somthing is or is not in the room.

To take for granted that a life and blood living body possesed of freedom of will and automation is automaticly is included is to make wortheless any reason for ever making the statement in the first place. We can not assume that this means nothing, it's in law, it's recognized that we don't execute laws which're worthless, so it must be signigicant.

Now sure, it may be incorrect to take this point on a person but I assure you your point has no more value to it then this one without first having something substantial behind it. Your own conjecture isn't substantial but the weight of opinion against you, the way that we can formally use logic to see worth in our own point, is more substantial.

Thus, if we balance it up, you seem to have lost. I would suggest you adjust your methods to find some more substance and then get back to us. You could be correct, these things are never nailed down afterall, but thus far you're not convincing. And just like those who lost cases using our person argument (somthing of which you seem to cling to as substantial, the outcome) were not convincing, you loose this round too because you're not convincing us.

Is it truly worth your time to argue further without redressing the method. Surely your offensive has failed and any further offensive will only lend substance to the argument; you're just here to cause contraversy?

vienna
27-01-2009, 10:53 AM
from http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?paged=4

QUOTE........."

The powers that be consider human beings to be animals.

The UN is awash with human rights documents but when you read the definition the real purpose is revealed - no rights only benefits disguised as rights like the benefit of food, water, husbandry and shearing is for the herd of sheep.

We exist for them to control us and our offspring; to be sheared and tended at their pleasure; like a herd of cattle or sheep.

The FDA laws have included this phrase in regards to what they consider drugs … “human beings OR OTHER ANIMALS”

Definitions:

Baby=Freehold Living Creation of God with Unalienable Rights (evidenced by NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE no Live Birth Registration)

Registration=Transfer of Title - ref. Blackstones Legal Dictionary

A Child is a Baby that has been Voluntarily Registered to the State by the parents using a Live Birth Record, creating the Birth Certificate

Child is RE-DEFINED in Child Welfare/Protection Acts as being a PERSON

PERSON=Human being with duties and obligations attached (evidence of the existence of a PERSON is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE)

License=Permission to do that which is ALREADY LAWFUL, God does not require a license to marry.

Marriage License required first in 1871 for a marriage between a black and a white. Reason: Blacks were 14th amendment citizens in other words PERSONS, almost all Whites in 1871 were most assuredly FREEHOLD LIVING CREATIONS OF GOD WITH UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. The Marriage License extinguished the rights of the freehold party and caused them both to become PERSONS and the State became a THIRD Party to the Marriage Contract. The State gives the benefits such as Family Allowance to THEIR CHILD, a PERSON and the State enjoys control over the fruits of the Marriage Contract that they are Party to. Acceptance of Benefits from the State is also evidence of the existence of a PERSON.

Surety=The Freehold Living Creation of God is the Surety for their PERSON. Should the PERSON not keep their duties and obligations the Vessel=the Surety (flesh & blood body) is seized (jailed) for non-compliance under Admiralty Law, the Law of the SEE, the Holy SEE, The Vatican.

SEE=SEA=WATER

Emancipation

The Blacks were granted emancipation by creating PERSONS for them. The illusion of freedom. No one can take your God given rights but you can give them away by your freewill action and your acceptance of privilege and benefits from the state/king/government and afterward they will control you and rule over you, you have given up your rights.

To grasp an historical background of these concepts one must go back in history.

It is indeed a very sad state of affairs when government is now firmly entrenched itself as arbitrary judge and jury over the fundamental bonds of family union between wife and husband; between a parent and their children.

And when the extraordinary powers of “officers of the courts” are used, too often you hear of malicious treatment of honest families, while in contrast clearly neglectful and completely dysfunctional/violent parents are allowed to have their children returned, often to more abuse.

Revealing the system of enslavement and the chance for freedom requires the explanation of the origin of the global slave trade by the Vatican.

To say that the Vatican set out to completely enslave the world by the 21st century, is not accurate. Much of the apparatus that is used today to legally enforce “wage slave” conditions –in which people are assumed (by their silence) to accept they owe a debt (the physical manifestation of sin), requiring them to bond themselves into slavery (property) of the state –came from the original legal framework for the global slave trade.

Understanding the history and the legal foundation of the entity- the Holy See (see One Evil article), it becomes clear for people to understand.

In order for the Roman Catholic Church not to legally be in contradiction to its own teachings (by the 13/14th Century being an important consideration), then people (living men and women, creations of God) who were to be enslaved had to legally be something less than a free person – a human being, this is the time period when the term human being came into use.

Read the Sheeple document linked above for a definition of a human being and this will become more clear.

Read about the History of the Holy See.

And the history of the Holy See in the Slave Trade.

Then obtain a copy of the Child Welfare Act for Arkansas or your state and read the Definition of a Child

Then you can set them free …

freemanpete
27-01-2009, 10:57 PM
Bouvier Law 1856

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.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial
person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect.
116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts,
natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to
show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or
women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by
reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any
public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law
specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves.
Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say,
who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one
who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes
ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as
persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to
be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358.
Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.)
when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered
in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide
Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as
to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into
parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters
and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv.
Inst. n. 1890, note.
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases,
not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by,
the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:

SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state;
it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a
state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to
impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to
form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.
Story on the Const. Sec. 207.
2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and
belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by
delegation.
3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great
powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; the first
is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second
is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad; and the last is
the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which
arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.
4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the
absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q.v.)
and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its
public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and
vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 208; 1
Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t.

MONSTER, physiology, persons. An animal which has a conformation contrary to
the order of nature. Dunglison's Human Physiol. vol. 2, p. 422.
2. A monster, although born of a woman in lawful wedlock, cannot
inherit. Those who have however the essential parts of the human form and
have merely some defect of coformation, are capable of inheriting, if
otherwise qualified. 2 Bl. Com. 246; 1 Beck's Med. Jurisp. 366; Co. Litt. 7,
8; Dig. lib. 1, t. 5, l. 14; 1 Swift's Syst. 331 Fred. Code, Pt. 1, b. 1, t.
4, s. 4.
3. No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape,
can be lawfully destroyed. Traill. Med. Jur. 47, see Briand, Med. Leg. 1ere
part. c. 6, art. 2, Sec. 3; 1 Fodere, Med. Leg. Sec. 402-405.

armoured_amazon
20-05-2010, 04:20 AM
*subbed* :)

lord bob haulk
20-05-2010, 07:52 AM
Freeman under god, er that's a bit of a leap of faith.

yozhik
20-05-2010, 02:00 PM
Freeman under god, er that's a bit of a leap of faith.

in contradistinction to ............................ ??

angelthecat
20-05-2010, 10:07 PM
spiritual being can be used in reference to an animal : have you ever seen a dog supplying spiritual comfort when its owner is distressed, or in a spirited fight to protect or save its owner?

sentient beings are any animal of the flesh that can feel pain [not just emotional pain]
Sentience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia can even describe artifical beings

what you are is a Man or a Woman embodying a living soul [the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others] [you cannot be all things to all men] [Man or Mankind was the only description given in the Bible, Human does not appear.] [you are a decendent of Adam who was given domain over all living things and the right to name all things] [its their book it tells you the answers] [the queen is the defender of the faith (*not religion*) and she lives in fear of breaking her oath before entering the house God (bethel- jacobs stone)] [Adam owned title of the Earth and you have inherited your share]
I have posted not to use human before
www.davidicke.com (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058820640#post1058820640)
www.davidicke.com/forum (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109669&page=4)
http://www.davidicke.com/forum (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058603563#post1058603563)

even the hardcore ickyites are starting to consider themeselves as humans with "Human Race Get Off Your Knees - The Lion Sleeps No More" as a title. Its just feeding the mindset

*Religion: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "return," and ligare means "to bind;"* in other words, "return to bondage." Do you still want some of that "old-time religion"?

The queen will stick to her oath [only if you dont want to be decieved. otherwise bad luck]
the Rothchildes [Red Shields] are her bankers and will do what they are told
there are NO independant banks [the all fly under the red shield and use the queens currency]
You can answer any question with I am an equal partner in earth [that is you inheritance from being in the bloodline of Adam and then Noah :)

merlincove
20-05-2010, 10:15 PM
Freeman under god, er that's a bit of a leap of faith.

"In god We trust"

the American moto :D

Bit of a leap of faith too eh?

lesactive
21-05-2010, 12:45 AM
Preamble:

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Separation of church and state aside.... of course.

fred gomez
21-05-2010, 06:36 AM
I like the debates going on and I think it should continue for purposes of education (not including this one). I will clear a few things up though.

The game of Football

Quarterback= human being, ball thrower, offensive player etc.

Running back= human being, ball runner, offensive player etc.

Cornerback= human being, also known as defensive back, etc.

I use the word human being only because its meaning is quite clear to me.

Because the position of quarterback can only be played properly by human beings a quarterback is a human being on top of other things.

Because a running back is a human being it does not mean a human being is a running back nor does it imply it nor say it specifically and unequivocally. (try getting grandma to run the ball).

Theres a difference between the definition of a word and the meaning of a word therefore there must be an explanation of the aforementioned.

The quarterback is defined as the human being (as well as other things)because the quarterback position can only be filled with that of a human being but a quarterback does not mean a human being, it is clearly defining the position which can only be played by humans therefore making them one when the game is played.

eg. ( "The object in question is said to have resembled a cornerback".....WTF?? )

So no, grandma is not a cornerback and grandpa is definitely not a running back and human beings are not persons. Case closed.

http://footballjesus.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/football_ref_touchdown_hclear.gif

This is a game and the game has to be played if its forced upon you with threat. -Fred-Joseph: Gomez-

lord bob haulk
23-05-2010, 08:40 AM
"In god We trust"

the American moto :D

Bit of a leap of faith too eh?

is your god not the same god or do you have a special god that er... allows you to be a freeman on the land? no wait, sorry, i was forgetting my mind is being controlled by the clangers.

merlincove
23-05-2010, 09:41 AM
Freeman under god, er that's a bit of a leap of faith.

"In god We trust"

the American moto :D

Bit of a leap of faith too eh?

is your god not the same god or do you have a special god that er... allows you to be a freeman on the land? no wait, sorry, i was forgetting my mind is being controlled by the clangers.

God, in essence, gifted man the freedom and liberty to live freely on the land, without hinderance, licence or levvy, and all are blessed with equal sovreign right: none above the other.

That isn't a leap of faith. The judicial system of the UK, as well in America and other countries, put their faith in God; it is written onto every IMF issued bank note and upon every State office building in America, and faith is entrusted in God by the Queen in her oath of office, and hense the very concept of Common Law is entrusted to 'him'.

God did not entrust only a certain few with freedom, but he entrusted all, he gives no special privilage to freeman, but gives to everyone the right to be freemen.

Free under Common and natural law: cause no harm, cause no loss.

Man has bastardised that concept in the search for oppression and greed, created statute law where none need be, for under Common Law all crimes can be adequately addressed.

Freeman stand against the oppression of one man by another, and that is the crux that you my friend will never ever understand if your posts are the level of your own comprehension, for you will remain a slave to your own closed mind while you fail to grasp your own natural and inate being as being free and equal.

Your inalienable right is to be free, take a look at why you are not free, and then you will begin to see the bondage that you are in, that your own mind allows you to be in.

When you come to unlock your mind and embrace your freedom, then you may be able to begin to grasp the constructs of control that have been weaved around you, open your eyes, see the chains and set yourself free.

Only you can do that, no one can do it for you.

Good luck with it :D

lord bob haulk
23-05-2010, 10:52 AM
God, in essence, gifted man the freedom and liberty to live freely on the land, without hinderance, licence or levvy, and all are blessed with equal sovreign right: none above the other.

That isn't a leap of faith. The judicial system of the UK, as well in America and other countries, put their faith in God; it is written onto every IMF issued bank note and upon every State office building in America, and faith is entrusted in God by the Queen in her oath of office, and hense the very concept of Common Law is entrusted to 'him'.

God did not entrust only a certain few with freedom, but he entrusted all, he gives no special privilage to freeman, but gives to everyone the right to be freemen.

Free under Common and natural law: cause no harm, cause no loss.

Man has bastardised that concept in the search for oppression and greed, created statute law where none need be, for under Common Law all crimes can be adequately addressed.

Freeman stand against the oppression of one man by another, and that is the crux that you my friend will never ever understand if your posts are the level of your own comprehension, for you will remain a slave to your own closed mind while you fail to grasp your own natural and inate being as being free and equal.

Your inalienable right is to be free, take a look at why you are not free, and then you will begin to see the bondage that you are in, that your own mind allows you to be in.

When you come to unlock your mind and embrace your freedom, then you may be able to begin to grasp the constructs of control that have been weaved around you, open your eyes, see the chains and set yourself free.

Only you can do that, no one can do it for you.

Good luck with it :D
and what happens if i don't contract with this fictional deity that gifted me my inalienable right to be free or you cant be free if your freedom depends on the gift of another.
Ain't no chains in my mind, my mind is the product of a universe that has taken 13.7 billion years to get to me, no middle man required. As Zappa so succinctly observed, "you are what you is".

merlincove
23-05-2010, 11:05 AM
"you are what you is".

and you are free, you just dont know it yet :D

OK Go - Here It Goes Again - YouTube

i wonder if we're actually getting anywhere?

swiftex
27-05-2010, 10:08 PM
hail lord bob! (give him the recognition he is deserved)

what about:

me = sovereign flesh and blood entity (which, used in definitions within whatever document used at that time)