If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What is Your Identity?

Identity

By Ken Bartle

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Suppose that the word Ê»personʼ (by definition) has been misconstrued in meaning. Suppose that in our society, a ‘person’ is a LEGAL ENTITY, a thing, an artificial construct and not a  Ê»living beingʼ. Suppose that you are blissfully ignorant of this deception, and truly believe that you are a “person”.

What if your government considers a ‘person’ to be a corporate entity? And what if, without your knowledge or consent, you are legally responsible for a corporate entity that bears your name? And as a consequence you are bound by rules and laws that were meant to govern commerce, not people?

What ill consequences might arise from your ignorance? And who might benefit from this misunderstanding? Letʼs look.

So what is a person? Is a “person” a Ê»thingʼ, is it a legal entity, or is it a Ê»living beingʼ? That needs to be clear.

This article pursues the concept of the Ê»personʼ and exposes our system of ‘identification’ as a most damnable and contemptuous crime.

“I’m that person”

Imagine you arrive at the front desk of your local government office and youʼre asked if you have any personal ID. “Yes, no problem” you say, as you flash your photo ID card or passport saying, “Iʼm the person”.

Suppose a ‘person’ is actually a LEGAL ENTITY. Havenʼt you just and agreed to act on behalf of that ‘artificial person’ in your capacity as a Ê»living beingʼ? Havenʼt you have just agreed to continue the deception?  And since you consented to this monstrous deception, would it shock you that corporatised Ê»governmentsʼ use that consent to treat you as a LEGAL ENTITY, an artificial Ê»personʼ, in all that it does and in every court in the country? Does it shock you that Ê»governmentʼ demands every self-serving compliance it can get away with? That it owns your drivers licence, your passport, your birth certificate, your kids, your education, their education, your health, your property title, your car?

And how would you feel to learn that every time you use the word ʻpersonʼ, you endorse a criminally deceptive legal perversion that underpins the most heinous crime in human history; the theft of your life, your identity, your freedom, and that of your family and friends?

What is a “person”?

Oxford Dictionary  defines ‘identification’ as:

“a means of proving a person’s identity, especially in the form of official papers”. [emphasis added]

Google provides a multitude of answers to the question – “original meaning of person?” My trusty Mac summed all of them succinctly.

ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ‘persone’, from Latin persona, Ê»actor’s mask, character in a playʼ, later Ê»human being.ʼ

Letʼs go right back to its Latin origins – persona, actor’s mask, character in a play. The word ‘person’ denotes a mask, a presumed character, a concealment of sorts, something under the covers that only deliberate inquiry may reveal.

So what might the word ‘person’ be hiding?

Let’s start by defining the legal meaning of the word Ê»personʼ. There are two persons identified in law: these are “natural-person” and “artificial-person”.

Natural persons

Letʼs try to define “Natural person”. Several definitions emerge from Google:

  • a human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.
  • ‘natural person’ refers to a human being as opposed to a legally-created entity, like a Corporation, Limited Liability Company, General Partnership, Limited Partnership, etc.
  • A natural person is any human being, with legal capacity commencing from the time of birth.
  • A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation.
  • A living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent.

All resources agree on “human being”, but there seems far too much divergence of opinion to clearly define Ê»natural personʼ. Qualifiers and dis-qualifiers abound; none are definitive.

Further research brought the website natural-person.ca into focus, particularly because it offers some words of caution.

  • Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words “person” and “individual”. There are only two “persons” in law, a human being, and everything else: a natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being. An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Did you spot it?

In almost every Statute”, there are two types of “persons”, and both are legal entities; one for the living being, and one not a living being. But did you notice it does not say that a Ê»natural-personʼ is legally “OF” the living being, but is an entity “FOR” the living being? Is it logical that if the “natural-person” is a Ê»legal entityʼ FOR a living human, then “natural-person” has no humanity to it. (E.g. a door FOR a shed is a door; it cannot also be a shed.)

Whatever happened to the “breathing”? What happened to all that flesh and blood?

Well, according to your LEGAL status, flesh and blood doesn’t exist. The definition of the phrase “natural-person” does not include the living beingʼs “Life characteristics”; those Ê»lifeʼ elements which prove life is present, have been disqualified. A “natural-person” is something constructed to serve a human being, and so must be some Ê»thingʼ other than human. It does not live. This “natural-person” is dependent for all its actions upon a living, breathing human being.

Does this surprise you? And would it surprise you to know you were not supposed to notice this distinction… like it is masked in legality and deceit?

Person or human?

Let’s examine this idea.

There are only two “persons” in law, a human being, and everything else. Sounds simple enough. Whatʼs to explain further?

Every human being is considered by the legal system to be a “person”. You are a member of the (legal) “person” club, and as an unknowing member of that club, a “natural-person” entity has been created for you. It hides under the mask of “person” and, deceptively, shares your name. And if you accept your Ê»membershipʼ by flashing your ID card, you are accepting and confirming that you are an artificial person.

Artificial persons

The word Ê»artificialʼ means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural. So an Ê»artificial personʼ is seemingly a man made copy – but of what?

An artificial person is a legal entity that is not a human being, but for certain legal purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.

Is your understanding complete yet, or is the wolf still circling?

Government created an artificial thing that is non-human, a Legal Entity, and labelled it an ‘artificial person’. Government statutes also create a Ê»natural personʼ entity, which enables the Ê»living beingʼ to act for the Ê»artificial personʼ – and be bound by rules applicable only to ‘artificial persons’.

So what does this mean?

Most people will accept that there is something about “government” that doesn’t feel right; that our current social structure doesn’t really benefit us, or our ailing environment. In a world of beauty and abundance, we work unreasonably long hours in concrete cities, foregoing our own desires, to barely scrape by. Why? To fit into a system of controls that existed long before each of us was born.

But think about it. If “the system” doesn’t benefit you, who does it ultimately benefit? It must work to someone’s advantage. It’s just not you!

And now we’re starting to understand how this all came to pass.

Government is not stupid. It recognised that a real, live human-being was an indispensable factor in activating this legal entity, to give it “life” and activity…. i.e. to open envelopes, vote to uphold government, write letters, pay on demand, get the kids vaccinated, attend court, apply for a license, pay registration fees, pay the extortion fee (fine) for parking longer than 60 minutes — all so that government could make money from your existence. Which it inevitably does.

Surprised? Don’t be. Government is a corporation after all!

But how many people really know and understand that what we consider “government’ is not real government, that it only masquerades as such? Theyʼve hidden this fact well, and for a very long time.

So what else have governments hidden? Youʼve guessed haven’t you? Persons.

Government recognised that it needed to mask this ‘person’ scam and keep it from public view. Otherwise, who would play along? Without your agreement (albeit by deceit) to play along, to represent the LEGAL ENTITY, government knows it cannot exercise control over your being. Government knows that it cannot legitimately exercise authority over living beings, as it is itself the creation of living beings. In the natural hierarchy, human trumps institution every day of the week.

So, to facilitate its system of control, government went back to Latin…. and presto! There was the word persona – a mask. The word fitted its purpose to perfection! And by misconstruing its meaning in common usage, living breathing human beings unknowingly accept the obligations imposed by law on the Legal entities created in our names.

The definition of Ê»personʼ now makes perfect sense, doesnʼt it? An Ê»actor’s mask’, a ‘character in a play’. And what better mask than to have a “Natural Person” act as a bridge to the LEGAL ENTITY – the “artificial person”? Better yet, why not put the Ê»natural personʼ (an entity created “for” the living being) in the same court (pun intended) with the non-living Ê»artificialʼ person, so that Lawyers can put more knots in the corporate noose that today has us all hanging by our necks?

By skilfully using the word “person” for both entities, government has hidden the mask right under your nose. We have been led to believe that a “person” is a human being – full stop. So we accept the legal ownership of the “person” LEGAL ENTITY (created by government) and in the process forego our basic human rights to the will of government.

Blackʼs Law Fictionary Dictionary (9th Ed.) says this about “Artificial Persons”:

Continue to Page: 1 2 3 4
  • http://www.detaxcanada.org Eldon Warman

    I question the idea of an ‘ID Card’?

    Anything one puts on an ID card denotes a thing, and not a living free will adult man. All ‘humankind’ was claimed by the Pontiff of Rome in Papal Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302 – and confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000. Thus, in the Romanized fictional world where all law is based upon the administration of a vessel at sea- maritime (fear of the sea) law, we can only communicate our status in terms of maritime law if we wish to influence the thinking of those ensconced in that system. All Romanized incorporations are make-believe vessels at sea, including how humans are viewed. Thus a human coming of the age of majority is a vessel launched on the sea of life. The free will mind becomes the sovereign captain of that vessel, his human physical body. The supremacy of a captain of a vessel at sea is not inferior to the claimed owner of the vessel (as the Pope claims all human bodies). The only way the rights of the captain can be thwarted is by breaking the divine law – Do no harm; or, by the captain voluntarily relinquishing command of his vessel – taken in tow by another vessel, as it were. Thus, we have the ever so clouded ‘voluntary’ nature of our submission to become a slave of another human, that is done by trickery of legalese words. A living free will man is a mind existing within a human vessel, and thus a mind cannot be physically ‘ID’ as where would a label be placed on a mind, that is a function and not a thing – not a physical entity?

    • http://Website Kevin Moore

      The Queen as I understand has jurisdiction over the “law of the land” while the pirates – the Bank owned U.N. has jurisdiction over the “law of the sea”.

      The Australian Government “Acts Interpretation Act” says –

      15B Application of Acts in coastal sea
      Coastal sea of Australia
      (1) An Act is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of Australia as if that coastal sea were part of Australia.
      (2) A reference in an Act to Australia, or to the Commonwealth, is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of Australia.
      Coastal sea of external Territory
      (3) An Act that is in force in an external Territory is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of the Territory as if that coastal sea were part of the Territory.
      (3A) A reference in an Act to all or any of the external Territories (whether or not one or more particular Territories are referred to) is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of any Territory to which the reference relates.
      Definition
      (4) In this section, coastal sea:
      (a) in relation to Australia, means:
      (i) the territorial sea of Australia; and
      (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or internal Territory;
      and includes the airspace over, and the sea”‘bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea; and
      (b) in relation to an external Territory, means:
      (i) the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory; and
      (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory and not within the limits of the Territory;
      and includes the airspace over, and the sea”‘bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea.

      • http://Website Kevin Moore

        To expand a little –

        The first Governor in 1694 of the now Rothschild owned Bank of England was the former captain of a pirate ship, Scotsman William Patterson [his antecedents were gravely suspected]. There was less chance of him getting hung as a financial pirate of the highland than as a pirate of the high seas. His black market policy was that of getting much for nothing by any means and by selling in the dearest market his spoils. That was the policy he established on land under financial piracy, and it has come right down to our times.

        The International Banks Offices are in the Channel islands and in the “Crown City of London.” They are exempted from Statute Law by the-

        “Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890″

        “Exception of Channel Islands and Other Possessions –

        The provisions of this Act with respect to Colonial Courts of Admiralty shall not apply to the Channel Islands. It shall be lawful for the Queen in Council by Order to declare, with respect to any British possession which has not a representative legislature, that the jurisdiction conferred by this Act on Colonial Courts of Admiralty shall not be vested in any court of such possession, or shall be vested only to the partial or limited extent specified in the Order.”

        http://freespace.virgin.net/bank.help/Facts/documents/10912.html

        Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,1890
        http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/shiplaw/legisltn/1890act.htm

        Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973
        http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sasla1973207/

        http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html
        Treason in Government! Admiralty on Land!! Where’s the Water?

        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_corporate_colonies#slide=8&article=What_were_the_corporate_colonies

        • http://Website Kevin Moore

          WHO OR WHAT CONSTITUTES THE “CROWN”

          The “modern” world of so-called Western Civilization began at the end of the 17th century with the blossoming of the British Empire. The underpinnings of that empire actually began several hundred years earlier with the establishment of the City of London, which is now an 800-year old corporation that controls finance and philosophy for an entity called the Crown. This entity is the creator and controller of the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve. They also control the World Bank, the IMF and associated cartels. The crown identity is kept most secret. The Crown/Bank of England assumed control of the United States during the Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. Read Here

          The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of this corporate body. The Crown is the directorate of the corporation. The island of Britain is a financial oligarchy run by the “Crown” which refers to the “City of London,” not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a “private” corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when king William the third of Orange privatized and turned the Bank of England over to the banksters. Considered the “Vatican of the financial world,” the City is not subject to British law.

          It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag and its own police force, separate from the metropolitan. City (crown/corporation) police drive red police cars and their uniforms are slightly different from the Metropolitan Police. Read Here

          It houses the privatised* Bank of England, Lloyds of London, the London stock exchange, all British banks, the branch offices of 385 foreign banks and 70 US banks as well as Fleet Street’s newspaper and publishing monopolies. It is also the headquarters for British Freemasonry.

          • http://Website Kevin Moore

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_colony
            .
            A Crown Colony, also known in the 17th century as royal colony, was a type of colonial administration of the English and later British Empire.[1][2]

            Crown, or royal, colonies were ruled by a governor appointed by the Monarch. By the middle of the 19th century, the Sovereign appointed royal governors on the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.[3] Under the name of “royal colony”, the first of what would later become known as Crown colonies was the English Colony of Virginia in the present-day United States, after the Crown, in 1624, revoked the Royal Charter it had granted to the Virginia Company, taking over direct administration.[4]
            Until the mid-19th century, the term “Crown Colony” was primarily used to refer to those colonies that had been acquired through wars, such as Trinidad and Tobago[5] and British Guiana, but after that time it was more broadly applied to any colony other than the Presidencies and provinces of British India and the colonies of settlement, such as The Canadas, Newfoundland, British Columbia, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and New Zealand, later to become the Dominions.[6]
            The term continued to be used up until 1981, when the British Nationality Act 1981 reclassified the remaining British colonies as “British Dependent Territories”. From 2002 they have been known as British Overseas Territories.[7]

            The current crown dependencies were never considered crown colonies; the form of government is constitutional monarchy, and the islands voluntarily cooperate with the government of the United Kingdom in certain areas. Sovereignty of the Isle of Man was purchased, and the Channel Islands are the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

    • http://Website Kevin Moore

      Definition: Holy See

      The common English name of the highest legal PERSONALITY under ROMAN LAW and COMMON LAW being the SEDES SACRORUM (Latin Sedes for seat/see, Sacrorum for holy/ holy right) otherwise known as Santa Sede and the “SS.” founded in the 13th Century by AntiPope Innocent IV and Venetian Doge Giovanni (a.k.a. Francis of Assisi). Under both ROMAN LAW and COMMON LAW, all PERSONALITIES are “owned” by the Holy See, also commonly known as the VATICAN which encompasses the legal apparatus by which the ROMAN CULT Pope and its Curia of Bishops SOVEREIGNTY over the whole Earth.
      .
      http://one-evil.org/lexica/

      Definition of person

      Person is a key rule of Law describing a fundamental legal fiction –that is any individual or formal organization subject to the Curia (courts) or lesser courts. Providing consent is given without duress, legally an individual, a corporation and even a nation may be considered a PERSON and therefore subject to the principles of common law and commercial (maritime) law of the Vatican/Roman Cult. Legally, the name assigned to a Person must always be in CAPITALS to distinguish a “person” from a free man or free society
      ….
      Definition for de jure sanguinis coronae

      Ancient Latin legal maxim literally meaning “concerning (the) law of (the) blood of crowns” In COMMON LAW since the end of the 16th Century, royal or noble blood has claimed superior status — in particular to the freedom of their body, protection of property and the obligation of any matter brought against then to follow DUE PROCESS (of the LAW), especially right of RELIEF. When an individual claims de jure sanguinis coronae, providing they demonstrate a comprehension of the term and why they should be granted such status (for example–knowledge of the valid argument that you are of royal birth by virtue of being Sons and Daughters of the King of Kings) then the COURT must grant such recognition. This means any failure of DUE PROCESS or failure to account for RELIEF by the COURT obligates to compensate the individual accused.
      ————-

      http://one-heaven.org/lexica/en/define/laws.html

      Natural Law is the law that defines the operation of the will of theDivine through its existence in the form of matter and physical rules. As Natural Laws define the operation and existence of the physical universe, all valid Positive Law may be said to be derived from Natural Law enacted by men and women through proper authority in accordance with these canons for the governance of a society. A Positive Law ultimately refers to physical objects and living beings; All valid Positive Law may be said to be derived from Natural Law. Cognitive Law cannot abrogate, suspend, nor change a Natural Law. Nor is it possible for a Cognitive Law or Natural Law to abrogate, suspend or change a Divine Law. Natural Law cannot be written or created, only discovered. Divine Law cannot be written or created, only instructed by Divine Grace in accordance with these canons.

    • http://www.absentlimits.net Ken Bartle

      All ‘humankind’ was claimed by the Pontiff of Rome in Papal Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302 – and confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000.?

      He didn’t get me – I was not “birthed then” so I could not be confirmed either.

  • http://Website Man Alive

    The Birth Certificate is of course the creation of the Dead Legal Fiction Person by Name that ‘you’ are presumed in ‘Lore’ to be. ‘Lost at Sea/See’ is also very interesting as the word See also means ‘Knowing’ (as in I see or understand). Therefore the man ‘you’ is deemed to be without the knowledge of who the man really is, hasn’t woken up to ‘know thyself’ and therefore is a lost at sea vessel to be salvaged and Named. The word ‘You’ of course is a reference to plural in correct grammar, as is the word ‘your’. Are ‘You’ Mr Billy Blogs in court is reference to a plural, ie the man and the Dead Fiction. Only the live man can answer and so therefore creates joinder to the Legal Society/Deadsville and becomes a corpse, lost at See.
    This MUST be added to this article as the words ‘You’ and ‘Your’ are extremely deceptive http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Achilles_Heel_Is_You.pdf

    Common Law brings the man alive and Karl Lentz from usa is working the magic at http://www.broadmind.org or http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk

    • http://Website Kevin MooreName

      Something like this may be useful when writing to a corporations agent who claims that you are subject to the corporations authority

      “I am aware that the government used the evidence written on an original registration of birth document purporting to represent the living me to formulate a Cestui Que Vie trust; and then issued Treasury Securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, to raise capital in exchange for guaranteeing my original registration of birth document, as a security i.e. collateral, for the fiat money that was created; at the same time, investing the proceeds in the stocks and/or bonds market. Please use the Cestui Que Vie trust account for the payment of your fine.

      Who is trading on your Birth Certificate/Bond Fund?
      http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1321294321

      The uppercase name on a birth certificate which sounds like my name, is not my name, it is my agent in commerce, a ‘corporate entity’. (Blacks Law Dictionary) I am a natural flesh and blood living man, not a corporation!

      Only under duress and out of private necessity to sustain and maintain life do I use the alloted numbers and names of my corporate agent in commerce to engage in the corporate commerce.

      I am not a person; this means that I am not a corporate entity.

      A “person” created by the pseudo-Crown and pretended or assumed to exist is of “slave” status and, owns nothing, including the labour and skills of the human body to which it is attached. The pseudo-Crown is a limited liability entity; and thus, can only create and recognize “limited liability fictional entities” – which can mean a man without free will by status change to “subject”/”person” by contract of servitude, or is mentally deficient for organic reason (ward of the pseudo-Crown).

      I do not stand under nor consent to the edicts/decrees [Statutes/Acts] of the State of ……….? as corporated nor any other corporation. I am not a corporation nor do I belong to a corporation. A corporation is a straightforward, well understood form of doing business that, through the creation of a separate entity, allows people to limit their liability in the event of a loss to the value of the shares they have purchased in the company.’Limited liability’ means a ship at high seas, or out to sea – and away from the access of courts or suit. All corporate entities are ‘make-believe ships at sea’. Common Law or the Law of the Land is thus avoided. Statute Law assumes corporate status; that every one registered is a pretended vessel on sea. [Acts Interpretation Act section 15b]

  • http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/ Stephen
  • http://Website Kevin Moore

    To understand the Bible I do not rely on translators too much.

    I looked in my Greek interlinear for the word “person” and –

    Strongs Concordance 4382 says –

    “from 4381 partiality, have respect to persons”

    Thayers Greek Lexicon 4382 – 82, says –

    “partiality, the fault of one who when called on to requite or to give judgement has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers as the more worthy,one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts.”

  • http://private-person.com Blackberry

    There is a legal difference between a private person and a public person in law. Corp. courts
    have authority over the public person. The private person can be subject to common law as opposed to public policy for the public person. Also the natural man/ private person is the rightful and true beneficiary of the corporate government birth TRUST account as opposed to being the TRUSTEE of the public person.

  • http://www.detaxcanada.org Eldon Warman

    A ‘person/persona’ is a fiction no matter how one dresses it up with an adjective. A ‘fictional character’ has no endowed rights. Anything of a ‘legal’ nature is a construct within the corporate system – a fictional system based upon a make believe vessel at sea. I suppose an imaginative man can create a fictional role, but, when that is brought into the corporate court system, it is subject to the whole fictional construct of the Romanized corporate world.

  • http://Website shaun

    Hello there, i enjoyed the article, just one thing i would like to point out though, The word “human” is from the Greek combining the words “hue” and “man.” “Hue” means “colour.” “Hue-man” means “color of man.”
    So again we have another legal term, it fits in with colour of law and my best guess is its another control measure and also a way to divide.
    I found this http://truthseekertimes.ca/tb/truebible0005.html very interesting article on the subject for your viewing, thank you for making me think about this topic again, peace and love be with you :)

    • http://Website Kevin Moore

      http://one-evil.org/
      .
      Phrase: human being Pronounciation: Century: 14th DA Name: human being Era: C.E. Origin: Original Type: Official Source Language: Latin
      .
      Source Language Words:
      .
      Being, also known as Essence, is a term used to define both the physical manifestation of a living higher order organism as well as the existence of a Mind and Self in a present moment of time-space.
      .
      The meaning of Being is derived from the ancient Gaelic root beo meaning “ alive, live, living, animate and moving” and the suffix ing meaning “action of, result of, product of, material of”.
      .
      The meaning of Essence is derived from three (3) Latin words esse meaning “to be”, en meaning “seen, look” and ce meaning “100”, or ancient Latin shorthand for completely (i.e. 100%). Hence the Latin phrase “in esse” means “in being, in actuality, having an actual existence.”
      .
      Human Being, also known as “Human”, is a term deliberately created in the 16th Century to update the naming of perpetual slaves to the Lords of the Land from the 13th Century term “Serf”. Human is derived from two (2) Latin words humi meaning “land, soil, country, on the ground” and anus meaning “rectum, (marriage / pledge) ring, old”. Hence the word Human literally means “married / bound to the land / earth” and Human Being legally means “land creature” also known as chattel – a variation of cattle and simply “land”.

  • http://www.detaxcanada.org Eldon Warman

    The missing context in most discussions about the term ‘person’ is ‘status’. Biblically, there are two statii (plural?) for mankind – free (free will) or bond (meaning owned as property). I believe it is quite obvious which status the term ‘person’ means – Ask the question; “Is there obedience required to some other party by the subject man. ‘Natural Person meaning ‘human being’, a term meaning a creature with a man’s body (male or female), but with an obedient mind of an animal.

  • David Hyde

    No one knows when they were born, where they were born or even in what country they were born in. As far as “drawing your first breath” that is also impossible to know.. The answer to all of the above should be “I don’t know” anything else is based uopn hearsay and is worthless. I suggest you only write down what it is that is written on your entry of live birth and use that as your authority for giving the information. The government accepted that information as being true and used it to issue a birth certificate for the person. The dates for the entry of birth and the birth certificate are usually 3-4 weeks apart. that is your first indication that they are not one and the same, one is born – the other is created.

Translate »