The Freeman Movement and England

[solzhenitsyn]

It is not in the definition of a person. But a monster is a human being. Strange, no?

mWell, I don't see where you've provided a definition of Monster that includes human being anywhere. But frankly, I have no idea why you've brought up the definition of monster in the first place?

You at least used a Law dictionary for a Law TERM...

Webster's is not a Law dictionary, so that's why there's no mention of corpoation, etc. within.

Firstly, you are the one who suggested that Webster's 1828 ed. was the definitive authority, not me. And secondly, it does mention that the definition of "person", above and beyond including natural persons, can also sometimes include corporations. It is definition #8. I've already pointed this out to you.

 

[grndslm]

Why were you claiming that it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than a number of definitions from actual legal dictionaries then? Could be because you didn't agree with the definitions in the actual legal dictionaries and you were hoping that some obscure historic dictionary might back you up?

I didn't say it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than anything else.

What I said is that it is important to understand the meaning of words at the time the Constitution was passed. And likewise with Law dictionaries for older statutes.

A 2000 Law dictionary that changes the meanings of terms to hide things from those who are unaware of historical meanings. Most law dictionaries after the 60s are fairly abridged, so you're missing a great deal by not looking at the older ones.

Same for Supreme Court cases... the farther back you read, the more you'll realize the intention of legislation. Supreme Court cases are an incredible resource with it comes to true intent of the Law.

And even in the limited function of using it to aid in the interpretation of words in the Constitution, it doesn't support any of the arguments that you are making.

Look up the definition for United States, federal, civil war, state, people, man as well. Then do that for Black's. Then do that for Bouvier's. Then keep going.

First, the law society doesn't change legal definitions of words. The legislature or Parliament does, and if they haven't specifically defined a word that needs to be defined, the Courts do. Second, let alone "providing multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases", you haven't provided even one in support of your claims.

First, we don't have parliament here. And when congress doesn't define a word, it's left up to the law society to publish their law dictionaries.

Check out how the term "Driver" has changed thru multiple revisions (incredibly sneaky)...

http://www.gemworld.com/US--DRIVER--definitions and meaning of.htm

Visit the site --> Freemen.Freeforums.org

----> Then visit the travel section to get an idea of some supreme court cases.

It's not like I'm hiding them from you, it's just that I'm too lazy to repeat myself.

No, your claim is completely without support from any authority. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the at least half dozen authorities that have been posted in this thread, two of which authorities you even suggested yourself. Your claim has no merit at all.

Look at that site and then tell me otherwise. That's just scratching the surface.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

You cannot provide "natural person" as a definition for person.

Do you understand what a recursive definition is??

Things that are similar are not the same, right??

So.. if a person is defined in a law dictionary as... corporation, association, partnership, etc... what makes you think a man would be included. A man is not included in the 4 or so law dictionaries I have a hold of.

Good lord. Firstly, as far as I am aware, a "recursive definition" is a mathematical term that has absolutely nothing to do with statutory interpretation.

Secondly, you yourself suggested Bouiver's Law Dictionary as an authority source, and guess what? It includes man in the definition of "person". I'll post it again as you clearly missed it the first time:

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; Wooddes. 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.
etc., etc....

 

[Jake Dale]

by the way grndslm, i notice you mentioned a couple of times that you would not consent to something that does not benefit you.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited for civility.

 

[grndslm]

mWell, I don't see where you've provided a definition of Monster that includes human being anywhere. But frankly, I have no idea why you've brought up the definition of monster in the first place?

You actually quoted it and everything.

I brought it up to prove that if a monster is a human being (and a human being is a monster). I'm not a human being if we're using Bouvier's dictionary is my point.

If we're not using the same dictionary... we're going to run into all kindsa trouble. What's important is coming to an understanding of what certain terms mean. And... I'm using a tried and trusted American Encyclopedic Dictionary -- Bouvier's.

Firstly, you are the one who suggested that Webster's 1828 ed. was the definitive authority, not me. And secondly, it does mention that the definition of "person", above and beyond including natural persons, can also sometimes include corporations. It is definition #8. I've already pointed this out to you.

Surely you could just quote me saying "definitive authority". I intended to say, if I did not... that Webster's is a much better aid for understanding the American Constitution and the meaning words at the creation of my country... than a dictionary created after the 1960s.

Sometime during the 60s, most textbooks & dictionaries suffered a serious decrease in quality. To hide things? To dumb us down? Probly a little bit of both.

 

[Stacey Grove]

It is not in the definition of a person. But a monster is a human being. Strange, no?

Hang on a minute, you said that "monster" was the definition of a person.
In post 5154 you said:

I think in Bouvier's dictionary, it actually defines a human being as a monster...

So now that you've been proved wrong you're twisting what you said.
LOL.

 

[tsig]

In Ohio, no lights are required. I made sure call and ask while I was there. We were staying near one of the largest Amish communities in the country (world?)...

Driving drunk is still driving drunk...
But it's not UNLAWFUL until you injure somebody or damage their property.

Speeding is still speeding...
Even if you're on a skateboard.

... AND...??

751.06 STANDARDS FOR OPERATION.
(a) The horse-drawn carriage shall, at all times when in use as such:
(1) Display adequate headlights, taillights and a passenger display light as
approved by the Director.
(2) Display a reflectorized slow moving vehicle emblem in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.11.
(3) Display, visible to the side at night, a light and/or reflectorization as
determined by the Director.
(4) Be equipped with seats for the operator and all passengers.
(5) Seat not more than eight occupants, to include the operator.
(6) Maintain a rubber surface on the wheel traction surface in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.25(7) Not be wider than eight feet, to include fenders, running boards and
safety mirrors and devices.


ETA:if a person is stopped and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and either fails or refuses a blood alcohol or chemical test, the officer seizes the offender’s drivers license on the spot, serves notice of suspension and sends the offender’s drivers license to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

 

[grndslm]

Good lord. Firstly, as far as I am aware, a "recursive definition" is a mathematical term that has absolutely nothing to do with statutory interpretation.

Secondly, you yourself suggested Bouiver's Law Dictionary as an authority source, and guess what? It includes man in the definition of "person". I'll post it again as you clearly missed it the first time:

Law Dictionaries are of no use in statutory definitions. Do you understand this??

There is no statutory definition I have seen that includes a human being, and if it did... it's not defined... so I can pull out Bouvier's and show that a monster is a human being, and I'm no monster, so I'm not a human being. Pretty simple, really.

But most every statutory definition that I have come across here does NOT include anything more than what I have stated -- corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural person.

NOWHERE is a "MAN" mentioned in a statutory definition that I am aware of.

Perhaps "human being" is.. but that ain't me, either. Human means "of man", and that ain't me.

by the way grndslm, i notice you mentioned a couple of times that you would not consent to something that does not benefit you.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited quoted remark.

Good Lord, man. You're really starting to bug me more than anybody else with your short, repetitive posts.

Just quote me, people... if I say something.. and you want to discuss it... then QUOTE me. K? Otherwise, I'm going to presume you're full of ****, like everybody else who makes claims on my behalf without quoting me.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and address the argument, not the arguer and please keep the discussion civil or posts will be moved to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

NOW SPIT OUT YOUR POINT, BEFORE I IGNORE YOU.

 

[grndslm]

Hang on a minute, you said that "monster" was the definition of a person.
In post 5154 you said:


So now that you've been proved wrong you're twisting what you said.
LOL.

I said "I think".

Then I pulled out the dictionary to get it correct.

Comprendes?

 

[tsig]

Define "drunk". I don't ever get drunk, but I drink and drive almost everyday. Mississippi is the only state in the Union that does not have an "open container law". We are legally,lawfully allowed to drink and drive, provided our BAC is not about 0.08%... and I rarely drink beer fast enough to exceed that, but maybe once a year.

OK... So where in that definition is the term corporation, as seen in every statutory definition of person and every law dictionary, in regards to a "person"???

That is not a law dictionary. I said that it would help when reviewing the meanings of words in reference to the Constitution.

It's still not a Law dictionary.

The point I'm trying to make is that... if legislature passes a statute with understanding-A... and then the law society decides to change the definitions of words in 2000 AD and newer law dictionaries... then they are attempting to change the original legislature's understanding-A. They will not succeed, provided that you have multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases.

Every statutory definition of person includes... corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, association, etc... and a "natural person", which is just a recursive definition... a natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (UNDEFINED)))).

BAC .08 or greater.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I said "I think".

Then I pulled out the dictionary to get it correct.

Comprendes?

OK
I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge your mistake.

 

[tsig]

This is not something to be proud of. Hang your head in shame.

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

 

[grndslm]

751.06 STANDARDS FOR OPERATION.
(a) The horse-drawn carriage shall, at all times when in use as such:
(1) Display adequate headlights, taillights and a passenger display light as
approved by the Director.
(2) Display a reflectorized slow moving vehicle emblem in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.11.
(3) Display, visible to the side at night, a light and/or reflectorization as
determined by the Director.
(4) Be equipped with seats for the operator and all passengers.
(5) Seat not more than eight occupants, to include the operator.
(6) Maintain a rubber surface on the wheel traction surface in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.25(7) Not be wider than eight feet, to include fenders, running boards and
safety mirrors and devices.

Well... I called the Nelson Township police (think it was actually a town over that started with a 'G', since Nelson Township didn't have its own police), and they assured me that the slow moving reflector was all that was required.

Don't live there, so had no need to continue my research.

ETA:if a person is stopped and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and either fails or refuses a blood alcohol or chemical test, the officer seizes the offender’s drivers license on the spot, serves notice of suspension and sends the offender’s drivers license to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

In any state in the Union, excluding Mississippi... you will likely be arrested if ANYONE in the automobile has an open container of alcohol.

In Mississippi... you MUST have a BAC of 0.08% or greater before you can be arrested. However, no breathalyzer or field sobriety test of any kind is required to give you a misdemeanor public drunk charge and lock you up.

If it were me, I wouldn't give any ID and wouldn't even speak with them to begin with. If they ask for a name, I'll tell them KYLE. What's your last name? Who said I need to have a last name?? Is a last name required? Am I required to have a Date of Birth?? Am I required to have an address?? Am I required to have a Social Security Number??

No, actually... I'm not.

At worst, they could lock me up under John Doe for 3 days, but then I'd get to teach a lot of "criminals" about how statutory law doesn't apply to them. I'd love nothing more than playing pool at the county work centers. Our jail has 2 pool tables, tho the felt is ripped up all over and sticks have NO tips. Not such a bad place. They get real eggs and everything. What a great benefit my society offers...

 

[jargon buster]

There is no statutory definition I have seen that includes a human being, and if it did... it's not defined...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/1999/252/regulation/3/made#text="human being"

4. Any preparation or other product consisting of one or more component parts, any of which contains a controlled drug, where—

(a)the preparation or other product is not designed for administration of the controlled drug to a human being or animal;

here, another 48
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?text=human being

 

[dudalb]

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

Alex Libmann the second.

 

[grndslm]

BAC .08 or greater.

Correct. I said .08% or about, but meant above. That is what "drunk" is statutorily defined as.

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

You did not ever see me state that I drive drunk.

In fact, I stated... "I do not ever drive drunk, but I drink and drive nearly everyday"... or something to that effect.

How do you interpret that to mean I am breaking the law and bragging about it??

Once again.. Mississippi is the only state in the Union that does not have an open container law. Every other state the driver will likely be given a DUI even if he hasn't had a sip to drink, but somebody in the backseat is drinking. In Mississippi, I've actually had a cop tell me that the driver can be double-fisting beers for all he cares, provided that the driver's BAC is not above .08%.

It is perfectly legal and lawful to do what I do here. It makes no sense to arrest someone if they weren't drinking. Likewise, it makes no sense to arrest someone if they just started drinking. It's no different than drinking a Root Beer in the car, is it??

 

[solzhenitsyn]

I didn't say it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than anything else.

What I said is that it is important to understand the meaning of words at the time the Constitution was passed. And likewise with Law dictionaries for older statutes.

A 2000 Law dictionary that changes the meanings of terms to hide things from those who are unaware of historical meanings. Most law dictionaries after the 60s are fairly abridged, so you're missing a great deal by not looking at the older ones.

Well, I completely disagree with this. However, that notwithstanding, you haven't provided even One historic dictionary, legal or otherwise, that supports any of the arguments you have been making.

Same for Supreme Court cases... the farther back you read, the more you'll realize the intention of legislation. Supreme Court cases are an incredible resource with it comes to true intent of the Law.

Look up the definition for United States, federal, civil war, state, people, man as well. Then do that for Black's. Then do that for Bouvier's. Then keep going.

What on earth would I be looking for?

First, we don't have parliament here. And when congress doesn't define a word, it's left up to the law society to publish their law dictionaries.

No, no its not. Its left up to the Courts. I assure you. Sometimes the Courts may rely on a legal dictionary as a resource when defining words, but again, those dictionaries are in no way published by the law society of any jurisdiction. Please provide me with one such example.

Check out how the term "Driver" has changed thru multiple revisions (incredibly sneaky)...




Visit the site -->


----> Then visit the travel section to get an idea of some supreme court cases.

It's not like I'm hiding them from you, it's just that I'm too lazy to repeat myself.


Look at that site and then tell me otherwise. That's just scratching the surface.

Against my better judgement, I actually accepted your offer. I remain thoroughly unconvinced, to say the least.

 

[Mojo]

You cannot provide "natural person" as a definition for person.

I didn't. I pointed out that natural persons (i.e. human beings) are and always have been a category of "persons". Do you need a Venn diagram to explain it?

 

[grndslm]

Alex Libmann the second.

I can't believe the number of people here who do not comprehend the words that come out of my mouth...

and we speak the same language just about.



Continuity gaps, Fabrications, Ignorance...

What kinda place is this??

 

[grndslm]

I didn't. I pointed out that natural persons (i.e. human beings) are and always have been a category of "persons". Do you need a Venn diagram to explain it?

I need you to show me a statute in my country, state that uses the term person.

Then I'll need you to show me the definition within that very same statute for the term "person".

It will NOT say "man". It will say natural person.

You CANNOT define a person with a natural person. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE.

IT'S A TRICK.