 |
 |
 |
YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PERSON"
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: "This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."
People are not persons. On the next page you will read legal definitions
of the word `person.' As you will see, persons are defined
as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes.
A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes.
In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants: Romans 6:16 (NIV): "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey ..."
Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943:
"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government."
1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
"... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."
US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:
"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..."
US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:
"... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure."
US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370:
"While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people ..."
Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the
impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the
laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It's as if
servants do not make rules for their masters. It's as if the Citizens who
created government were their masters. It's as if civil servants were to
obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1.
You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3. Imagine that!
Isn't it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are
a terror to good works? Isn't it a shame that you enlisted to obey them?
US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421: "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):
"Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S.
258, 67 SCt 677 (1947):
"In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."
US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:
"Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530:
"In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417,
425:
"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1."
In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330)
the Supreme Court found that "In United States, sovereignty resides
in people ... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People
to override their will as thus declared."
That's right! According to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons. This all makes sense, after all, servants don't make rules for their masters. In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax
attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial U.S.
v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript. On page 296 of the
book, you will read where the IRS claims that "an individual is somebody
with a social security number."
For the advanced student: The 1936 conference of Governors made a promise to pay the interest on the national debt from the future earnings of its federal citizens. This is as valid as any other promise to pay, as is a promissory note. As with any mortgage or loan it can be sold or even foreclosed. When it is sold, the collateral is transferred with it. The following is speculation. The pieces of the puzzle seem to fit together when you take the word "PERSON" to a third level of abstraction. Suppose that the word "PERSON" refers to a government corporation. When a birth certificate is filed with a state, the federal government creates a "strawman corporation" with the same name as the baby, except the name is all capitalized. This corporation is the all capitalized name that you see on "your" ID, which is not you and is not even a proper noun. It is the corporation that gets a social security number. This would be consistent with the Constitution that prohibits people from getting welfare. Only the corporation can get a bank loan or earn interest. This would explain how the government gets around the usury laws. Only the corporation can get a driver's license or passport, or declare bankruptcy or pay probate or fill prescriptions. Only the corporation can pay taxes (which otherwise would be unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax). The state marries and divorces the corporations, while the flesh remain husband and wife until death do they part (as in Romans 7:2,3) because the government cannot put asunder any family relationship. Attorneys must represent corporations. Attorneys are prohibited from representing people (according to the Supreme Court in the Schware case). After the corporate child is created, the federal government then opens
a Treasury Account into which it makes an account entry of the estimated
value of all future earnings. It then uses the Governors' promise to pay
this account as collateral for another loan on the national debt. This
corporation remains unconnected to you until you volunteer to pay its debts.
To become surety to pay it's debts, all you have to do is voluntarily sign
a W-4 form or a 1040 Form or pay a license fee. This becomes
a solutio indebiti. You won't believe that such a thing exists,
but according to the law dictionary: "From the payment of which is not
due arises an obligation ... and includes also the case where one performed
labor for another, or assumed to pay a debt for which he was not bound,
or relinquished a right or released a debt, under the impression that he
was legally bound to do so."
|