The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
it wasn't an evasion... What is considered "a driver" in Germany has never had a distinction between commercial and private. And frankly - if you ask me - even in the English sphere it matters not a bit. Because only a "Person" can ever be defined as such, not a human being.
Click to expand...

The Artful Dodger could take your correspondence course.
 
tobjai said:
No they aren't... not in the English world and not anywhere else. I'm sure you have a black's dictionary.. look it up.
Click to expand...


Actually, Black's only describes U.S. law (and is a commercially published dictionary). And in any case, your assertion that human beings are not "persons" is based on the misunderstanding highlighted by Jargon Buster a couple of minutes ago.
 
NOOOO... I'm not sure how you're coming up with that one, but it aint from me! Nobody "controlls" anything but their own business.
Click to expand...
would anyone cooperate tobjai?
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
A human being can do pretty much anything (incl. driving a car). BUT a human being cannot be charged by the supposed authorities for they have only authority over the fiction with the same name.

So whether its driving or travelling... potatoes "petatos" ...I'm not sure why people incl. some wannabe FMOTL are wasting their breath over this. So lets close this useless argument right here, shall we?
Click to expand...

That is just nonsense.Be a man and admit that you've lost the argument.
 
tobjai said:
it wasn't an evasion... What is considered "a driver" in Germany has never had a distinction between commercial and private. And frankly - if you ask me - even in the English sphere it matters not a bit. Because only a "Person" can ever be defined as such, not a human being.
Click to expand...


Who was driving the car? Did a big boy do it and run away?
 
Mojo said:
The human being and "the fiction with the same name" are one and the same.
Click to expand...

Guys... use a law dictionary... then make claims.... or at least provide a non-wikipedia poof of it... I can act "on behalf / in the name of my person"... but thats about it.
 
tobjai said:
NOOOO... I'm not sure how you're coming up with that one, but it aint from me! Nobody "controlls" anything but their own business.
Click to expand...
So you propose return to hunting and gathering, entire self-sufficiency with no outside trade?
 
tobjai said:
No they aren't... not in the English world and not anywhere else. I'm sure you have a black's dictionary.. look it up.
Click to expand...
I don't have a Black's dictionary, because that's an American thing and, concerning the older versions of the dictionary, an FOTL kook thing, and I am neither of those.

But, I'm happy to rely on JLord's quote from the Detax thread:

person (13c) 1. A human being

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6461895#post6461895
Click to expand...
I'm also quite happy to rely on the mountains of case law saying the same thing. Here is but one example:

Kennedy v. Canada said:
[16] Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) gives as the primary meaning of the word “person”, “a human being” and, as a secondary meaning, “an entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being”.


Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), (1983) defines a “person” as:
The object of rights and duties, that is, capable of having rights and of being liable to duties. Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being; an artificial person is a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation.
…​
In the Dictionary of Canadian Law (2nd Ed.) (1995), a “person” is a “natural person” and “includes a body corporate or politic” Blackstone himself made the same distinction between natural and artificial persons and treated them all as persons in the eyes of the law (see para. [11] above).


[17] These definitions taken from dictionaries including dictionaries of legal terms are uniform and clear. A “person” in its ordinary meaning includes a human being or a natural person as well as an artificial person such as a corporation. The primary sense of the word is a natural person; the secondary sense, an artificial person such as a corporation.


[18] The Interpretation Act (Canada) is consistent with this ordinary meaning. Section 35 of that Act defines a “person”, as follows:
“person” or any word or expression, descriptive of a person includes a corporation.


The use of the verb “includes” extends the definition to include a corporation. The definition does not exclude a human being. In the French text of the Act, the meaning is even clearer:
« personne » Personne physique ou morale; Tune ou l’autre notions sont visées dans des formulations générales, impersonnelles ou comportant des pronoms ou adjectifs indéfinis.
A “personne physique” is a natural person; a “personne morale” is a corporation.


[19] I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that in its ordinary meaning and in its common or popular sense, the word “person” in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations.


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2000/2000canlii22837/2000canlii22837.html
Click to expand...


I am also content to rely on the struggle for women's rights in my country, where women, after much effort, won the right to be recognized as persons. See here for a summary of what is called the "Persons Case":


http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html


Not all persons are human beings, but all human beings are persons.
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
No they aren't... not in the English world and not anywhere else. I'm sure you have a black's dictionary.. look it up.
Click to expand...

i like the freeman conspiracy as much as the next man but going over the human/person with one of them is just so dull, it's just to stupid. It's up there with the driving/travelling debate so beloved by the freemen.
 
BobHaulk said:
i like the freeman conspiracy as much as the next man but going over the human/person with one of them is just so dull, it's just to stupid. It's up there with the driving/travelling debate so beloved by the freemen.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And it's just so pathetically easy to show that it is totally wrong. I never cease to be amazed that FOTLers continue to try this tactic when it is utterly hopeless.
 
tobjai said:
Guys... use a law dictionary... then make claims.... or at least provide a non-wikipedia poof of it... I can act "on behalf / in the name of my person"... but thats about it.
Click to expand...

natural person A human being. Compare juristic person .

legal person A natural person (i.e. a human being) or a juristic person . See also international legal personality .

juristic person (artificial person) An entity, such as a corporation , that is recognized as having legal personality, i.e. it is capable of enjoying and being subject to legal rights and duties. It is contrasted with a human being, who is referred to as a natural person.

international legal personality Legal personality is principally an acknowledgement that an entity is capable of exercising certain rights and being subject to certain duties on its own account under a particular system of law. In municipal systems, the individual human being is the archetypal “person” of the law, but certain entities, such as limited companies or public corporations, are granted a personality distinct from the individuals who create them (see juristic person ). Further, they can enter into legal transactions in their own name and on their own account. Under international law, the state is the typical legal person , and other entities may be considered as the “subjects” of international law in so far as they can enter into legal relations in the international sphere.

A Dictionary of Law. by Jonathan Law and Elizabeth A. Martin. Oxford University Press 2009 Oxford Reference Online.
 
sure... based on individual consent of course.
Click to expand...

So i need you to do something for me by 6pm this evening, you claim you cant do it so nothing happens.
So you either agree to do it (admit that I have "control" of the situation) or nothing ever gets done.
 
tobjai said:
It supports why FMOTL do what they do... what I do (just got some speeding charges against my legal name dropped - that is in Germany though).
Click to expand...

delete
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), (1983) defines a “person” as:
The object of rights and duties, that is, capable of having rights and of being liable to duties.

[18] The Interpretation Act (Canada) is consistent with this ordinary meaning. Section 35 of that Act defines a “person”, as follows:
“person” or any word or expression, descriptive of a person includes a corporation.
Click to expand...
I felt free to highlight the significant portions in your quote.

Not all persons are human beings, but all human beings are persons.
Click to expand...
Alone the fact that slaves couldn't be dealt with "as persons" proves this statement wrong. Persons are legal fictions that bear all duties and rights a government proclaims. Like the Latin origin gives away, it is a mask that one can wear if they want to slip into the roll play as "child of the state".

K... I'm done playing for today... but I will still attempt to post my pdf tonight.
 
tobjai said:
Agreed.


Self defence



And again... self defence... they'll have to do the first (illegitimate) strike though. Thats when us common people come after them with hay forks and rakes (just kidding :)).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you common people the bad guy has machine guns and tanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom