The Freeman Movement and England

[Mojo]

I brought it up to prove that if a monster is a human being (and a human being is a monster).

For your next trick, perhaps you would like to prove that if all ducks are birds (and all birds are ducks).

 

[grndslm]

The term "person," when used in any statute, shall apply to artificial as well as natural persons; and when used to designate the party whose property may be the subject of offense, shall include the United States, this state, or any other state, territory, or country, and any county, city, town or village which may lawfully own property in this state; also all public and private corporations, as well as individuals.

Does NOT apply to men.

(c) The term "operator" means any person in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on the highway;




(d) The term "owner" means a person who holds the legal title of a vehicle; in the event a vehicle is the subject of an agreement for the conditional sale or lease thereof with the right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement and with an immediate right of possession vested in the conditional vendee or lessee, or in the event a mortgagor of a vehicle is entitled to possession, then such conditional vendee or lessee or mortgagor shall be deemed the owner for the purpose of this article.

Can't find the good, short ones that include ALL examples of artificial persons... but MEN are not persons. Sorry.

 

[Mojo]

Does NOT apply to men.

Yes it does: men are "natural persons", which are clearly and explicitly included.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Does NOT apply to men.

So what do you believe the term "natural person" means?

 

[grndslm]

For your next trick, perhaps you would like to prove that if all ducks are birds (and all birds are ducks).

False analogy.

A correct analogy would be more like defining a DUCK.

DUCK. Daffy, Donald, & Natural DUCK.

Soo... a Duck is a natural cartoon.

Understand?

It's not like I'm the one creating the definition of a person. OK? If my government really wanted to shut the lid on this whole "theory", they could simply include man in the definition, but they can't do that. They can only act on a person, a legal fiction... because the government itself is a legal fiction.

 

[Mojo]

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

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[grndslm]

Yes it does: men are "natural persons", which are clearly and explicitly included.

Not in any statutory definition in my country.

So what do you believe the term "natural person" means?

What I believe is irrelevant.

What matters is what the statute's internal definition states if there is one. That is the meaning to comprehend.

You can't just presume "man" is a natural person... but some reasons as stated above with the duck comparison.

Last time... A person is a legal fiction, a legal fiction, a legal fiction, a legal fiction, and a natural (legal fiction).

The definition is right in front of your face, and is REQUIRED to be used in interpretation.

 

[jargon buster]

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

do you think that may be because person includes women and children?
Or would you prefer statutes to keep repeating "man ,woman or child" instead of the word person?

 

[Mojo]

False analogy.

Nope. Even if a dictionary defines a monster as a human being, it doesn't mean that human beings are defined as monsters, and more than ducks being a category of birds means that birds are defined as ducks. Are you sure you don't need a Venn diagram?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

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

IT'S A TRICK.

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII):

[7] In Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186 (Kennedy),
Justice G. Gordon Sedwick of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that “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” (para. 17). Thus, the Court found that, “the word “person” in a statute
includes both natural persons and corporations” (para. 19) and “a “person” as defined in s. 248(1) of
the Income Tax Act includes both a natural person and an artificial person.” (para. 21).

I'll simply presume that your mind is blown.

 

[Stacey Grove]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf

In his third issue, Gray asserts that the trial court erred by presuming that a “sovereign
man” is a “person” subject to the laws of the State of Texas. According to Gray, “sovereigns
are excluded from all the statutes.” Gray characterizes himself as a sovereign exempt from the laws
of this State. We disagree. A “person,” as that term is defined by statute, means an individual,
corporation, or association. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(38) (West Supp. 2009). An “individual”
means a human being who is alive. Id. § 1.07(26). Gray is a person subject to the laws of this State.
We overrule Gray’s third issue.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Oh dear. Another one. Its INCONCEIVABLE!

R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII):

[35] Historically, Mr. Lindsay says, when we speak of a person we speak in opposition to a man. We speak of his status, the part he plays in society, without considering the man himself, i.e., a person is a man considered with reference to a certain status. It comes down, he says, to choosing whether to obey God or Parliament. Clearly, he says, he obeys God. Thus, he has the free will to refuse to be a person pursuant to the Income Tax Act. The Queen, he says, must uphold her end of the contract, i.e., she must protect and maintain the principles of the Christian religion, the rule of law, his property and enjoyment of same, and cannot give Royal Assent to legislation which takes that away without his consent. Each man has the choice as to whether he will voluntarily submit to the Income Tax Act and its requirements. Mr. Lindsay cites a number of definitions of “person” and emphasizes that none of them include man. He says that there is no law that cloaks Parliament with the jurisdiction to force him to be a person without his consent. Further, if he was a person sometime in the past, there is no law that says he cannot cancel or otherwise revoke being a person.

[36] Mr. Lindsay also traces the history of Canadian Income Tax Statutes. He argues that the 1916 Business Profit War Tax Act was obviously only intended to apply to corporations and other fictions (trusts etc). Thus, when the 1917 Income War Tax Act was passed some six months later, how could a person then include a man unless that man volunteered to become a person? Mr. Lindsay then goes on to discuss various principles of statutory interpretation, which he argues support his contention that a person is not a man.

[37] There is only one principle of statutory interpretation that is relevant here. That is made clear by the Supreme Court of Canada in Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen 1984 CanLII 20 (S.C.C.), [1984] 1 SCR 536. As regards the interpretation of taxing statutes, Mr. Justice Estey said this at page 578:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

[38] The goal of the Income Tax Act is obviously to permit the recovery of taxes for the Crown. Simply put, it requires everyone who earns income in Canada (and perhaps sometimes outside of Canada) to report that income and to pay taxes on it as required by the Act and Regulations. That is the scheme of the Act. The argument that some men (or women) can opt out of the Act by choosing not to be “person” or by renouncing their “personhood”, while at the same time being at liberty to use public parks, highways, buildings, airports, healthcare, and everything else the Province and the Country provide, without paying their fair share of taxes, is untenable.

 

[abaddon]

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

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??

You are just tinkering with the letter of the law here.

You are a self admitted alco at the wheel, and deserve to be caught for it.

 

[grndslm]

They can't take me to jail, because I won't be drunk.

Don't alcoholics depend on excessive intake of alcohol??
Like obese people depend on excessive intake of food??

Moderation is the key, people.

And I cannot mediate with you when it comes to Canadian statutes or cases. Not my specialty.

 

[grndslm]

do you think that may be because person includes women and children?
Or would you prefer statutes to keep repeating "man ,woman or child" instead of the word person?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6880876&postcount=5202

Where does it say man, woman, or child??

You CANNOT define a Person as a PERSON.

We learned that every year in English class up until the 9th or 10th grade, probly.

 

[Mojo]

You CANNOT define a Person as a PERSON.

No, but you can define "persons" as including natural persons and artificial persons, which is what the law does.

 

[Mojo]

What I believe is irrelevant.

Since you believe that persons are not persons, that seems very probable.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

And I cannot mediate with you when it comes to Canadian statutes or cases. Not my specialty.

Point taken. I didn't realize that you had a specialty. You've only trained and practiced in Mississippi law I presume? Well, I'm only familiar with Canadian law, so you'll have to bear with me as I wade into your specialty (although, as we have both trained and practiced, I'm sure you'll agree that legal research and reasoning are really skills that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, no?)

Anyway, after a quick search I found this decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court in the matter of Coleman v. State of Mississippi, NO. 2004-CT-00346-SCT.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Randolph (this passage is collateral to the point on which Randolph J. is dissenting) states as follows:

¶35. Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. Section 1-3-65 instructs, “All words and phrases contained in the statutes are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning; but technical words and phrases according to their technical meaning.” As my esteemed colleague, Justice Dickinson, recognizes those who may be prosecuted for embezzlement are “limited to certain persons who steal from 'any private person,'” let us examine the common meanings of “private” and “person” as defined by Webster's Dictionary.

Private is defined as “(4) Belonging to a specific person or persons; (5)
Not in an official or public position; (6) Not public.” Webster's further provides the core meaning: belonging or confined to a particular person or group....” Webster's II New College Dictionary 880 (2001).

The definition of person is as follows: “(7) Law A human being or
organization with legal rights and duties.” Webster's II New College Dictionary 820 (2001).

I've bolded the relevant bits. Of course, the Court doesn't feel the need to also examine the common meaning of "human being", but I imagine that you will, so please find it below, also from Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid

Thoughts?

 

[LashL]

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII):



I'll simply presume that your mind is blown.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf

Oh dear. Another one. Its INCONCEIVABLE!

R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII):

And here's another one (this one is particularly interesting because the plaintiff claimed that he was actually a Martian, and his claims were struck on the basis that a Martian is not a human being, therefore the plaintiff had no standing to sue. I love this case. )

In my opinion there are at lease two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed.

1.​

Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as "a person who commences an action". The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as "an individual human being". Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly's actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.

2.​

In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court. In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued. More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.

In any event, grndslm, what's with this fixation of yours on old law dictionaries? Law dictionaries do not define words; rather they report upon how courts have interpreted words in various cases.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

^ Ahhh, you just can't invent comedy like that. I can't find the decision reported on CanLii. I'll have to check Westlaw tomorrow. Thanks though. I'm looking forward to it.