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”:

Artificial person. (17c) An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being …. – Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY

Persons, persons, persons! Read it again. Pause on every phrase. Let every one sink in.

Is your ‘person’ a “legal entity” that bleeds you of every life characteristic you possess, a lifeless entity that will be treated as “more or less” human? And if Ê»personsʼ are “given certain legal rights and duties”, then do Ê»personsʼ also have unalienable rights – rights that do not depend on government granting or withdrawing them? You would have to think not, surely.

Personally speaking….

Wikipedia asserts that the purpose of identification (ID) is to “verify aspects of a person’s personal identity”, and there aren’t many who would disagree with that definition. Now consider….

When a person, who does not understand what ‘person’ actually means, hands over their personal ID to another person, they give up their persona and becomes the ‘person’ behind the mask. They assume the role of the LEGAL ENTITY ‘person’, a mask they believe is their real human person.

Use of the word ʻpersonʼ on a daily basis is almost impossible to escape. It is so ingrained into our language, our conversations, even our news reports.

For example, “two witnesses reported a young person departing at high speed”.

Witness definition? A person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.

Another example, “many were horribly shocked, some bystanders needing psychological counselling”.

Bystander definition? A person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.

Another example, “the defendant appeared in court in person“.

The labels and roles we are attributed in our society all invariably point back to the word ‘person’ which, as we know, is a LEGAL ENTITY.

Collectively speaking….

‘Peopleʼ is a collective word. ‘Persons’ is also a collective word. So what is the difference?

According to OxfordDictionaries.com:

The words people and persons can both be used as the plural of person, but they are not used in exactly the same way.

People is by far the more common of the two words and is used in most ordinary contexts: a group of people : there were only about ten people : several thousand people have been rehoused.

Persons, on the other hand, tends now to be restricted to official or formal contexts, as in : this vehicle is authorized to carry twenty persons : no persons admitted without a pass.

Did you catch that one? Observe that “a group of people”, “about 10 people”, “several thousand people” describes living, flesh-and-blood human beings.

‘Persons’, conversely, is a quantity of individuals to be ruled, to be restricted, to be governed, to be “authorized”, to be (or not to be) “admitted without a pass”.

As the linguistic context switched from ʻpeopleʼ to ʻpersonsʼ, so too the social context switched from ʻnot ruledʼ to ʻruledʼ.

Personalism

Twists and turns permeate the topic of the ‘person’, as all the above indicates. if you really want to get to the bottom of a ‘person’ (excuse the pun – I did not mean to be personal!) a thorough and comprehensive article entitled ‘Personalism’, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1 is essential (but not easy) reading.

The term ‘person’ comes from the Latin persona, whose origins are traceable to Greek drama, where the πρόσωπον, or mask, became identified with the role an actor would assume in a given production. Such usage is carried over today in the word “persona,” referring to characters in fictional literature or drama, or second identities which people adopt for behavior in given social contexts.

Its introduction into the mainstream of intellectual parlance, however, came with theological discourse during the patristic period, notably the attempts to clarify or define central truths of the Christian faith. These discussions focused primarily on two doctrines: the Trinity (three “persons” in one God) and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (the “hypostatic” union of two natures – divine and human – in one “person”).

Notice the bold portions. Are you seeing a trend here? Throughout the patristic period, the word ‘person’ was cultivated to denote separation, or multiple identities.

In a later paragraph it is described as an:

… elusive concept which in some respects wholly inverts the original connotations of exteriority in the early meanings of “mask” and “role”: person comes rather to denote the innermost spiritual and most authentic kernel of the unique individual.

Observe how the (innermost spiritual) persona is seen to be an element within the ʻpersonʼ, as though separate from the individual; as though the persona has an assumed (greater) importance.

Dignity

Keep reading Personalism, and after describing the Eastern, European and American influences and histories of “personalism”, the real message begins to emerge….

Dignity refers to the inherent value of the person, as a “someone” and not merely “something,” and this confers an absoluteness not found in other beings.

Donʼt run away yet – thereʼs a tiger lurking here. Consider this….

If dignity is the inherent value of the person, then self-respect, pride, self-esteem and self-worth are human attributes that transform “something” into “someone”. The “absoluteness of those attributes are not found in other beings”. Join the dots and human dignity is what makes a person, agreed?

But what are these “other beings” that do not have dignity and do not therefore qualify as persons? Are they animals? Letʼs look further.

In stressing the uniqueness of persons vis-à -vis all other entities, personalists influenced by Thomism (Thomas Aquinas) designate the essential dividing line of reality as that which separates personal and non-personal being.

Now weʼre getting closer! Does a “non-personal being” suggest an artificial-person?

Here classical-realist personalists reject the Hobbesian (Thomas Hobbes) notion of dignity as the price set on an individual by the commonwealth, and ally themselves rather with Kant (Emanuel Kant) in his assertion that dignity is inherent and sets itself beyond all price. (Emphasis mine)

Apparently thereʼs division in the ranks. It seems that (notional) “dignity” was once considered the “price set on an individual by the commonwealth”, but German philosopher Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) asserted that dignity is beyond all price, because it is inherent.

Sounds like Kant knew his stuff! Is there a change in tone here, as first seems to be the case? Or did Kant realize that if you want to disguise a non-living being as a living being youʼd damn well better give both dignity or youʼve blown your cover?

The mask

Continuing from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Swiss theologian Hans Urs presented the following viewpoint:

Von Balthasar, for example, wrote: “Few words have as many layers of meaning as person. On the surface it means just any human being, any countable individual. Its deeper senses, however, point to the individual’s uniqueness which cannot be interchanged and therefore cannot be counted.” In this deeper sense persons cannot, properly speaking, be counted, because a single person is not merely one in a series…. and thus exchangeable for any other.

Von Balthasar goes on to say: “If one distinguishes between ‘individual’ and ‘person’ (and we should for the sake of clarity), then a special dignity is ascribed to the person, which the individual as such does not possess…. We will speak of a Ê»personʼ… when considering the uniqueness, the incomparability and therefore irreplaceability of the individual. (Emphasis mine)

But it seems Kantian psychology won the day.

In an article entitled “Causality Versus Duty”, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand wrote….

If “genius” denotes extraordinary ability, then Kant may be called a genius in his capacity to sense, play on and perpetuate human fears, irrationalities and, above all, ignorance. His influence rests not on philosophical but on psychological factors.

Further demonstrating her point, Rand also wrote….

Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality.

The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a readerʼs critical faculty – a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and subsub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable – all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions.

What greater evil?

Letʼs examine Randʼs reference to “propagating an outrageously evil idea”. Which of the following would be the greater evil?

1. To propagate an outrageously evil idea? Or….

2. To give an existing evil idea the face of acceptability so thoroughly and uniformly that no one would ever recognise its evil nature or purpose?

How would you achieve what question 2 proposes? How would you whitewash an evil idea thoroughly?

There are no prizes for the correct answer; youʼd dispel the notion that the idea was evil in the first place; make it acceptable, normalise it, gloss it over, change the words so it means something different, even remove the words entirely. And, because this must be done thoroughly and uniformly, youʼd hit the most receptive nerves possible through the most common resources at your disposal.

Scrubbing scripture

For clues, letʼs look back through history, before the times of the many philosophers mentioned in the Stamford University article, specifically to the Wycliffe Bible (1380) (by LAMP POST Inc. 2008)

1. James 2 v9:

But if ye taken persones, ye worchen synne, and ben repreued of the lawe, as trespasseris.

2. Romans 2 v11

For acceptioun of persones is not anentis God.

3. Acts 10 v34

And Petre openyde his mouth, and seide, In trewthe Y haue foundun, that God is no acceptor of persones;

Now this was written is in 1380. There was no TV and no internet in those days. No emails, faxes or even Gestetner duplicating machines. “WTF is a typewriter..” it might be asked, “much less a Biro?”

But there were philosophers, the practice of which examines the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence, to provide man with a comprehensive view of life that serves as a base and frame of reference for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential.

Even without a detailed language translation, it is very clear from the 1380 biblical quotations above that Ê»personsʼ was not an acceptable idea to God, to say least. “God is no acceptor of persones” and “acceptioun of persones” is “synne”.

Philosopherʼs disagreed. Immanuel Kant, and others proceeding him, decided that “persones” should be granted dignity, even at the expense of individuals – of living human beings.

Surely that conflicts with the scriptures quoted above! Did these dudes turn the tables, psychologically and philosophically? Did they give an existing evil idea the face of acceptability so thoroughly and uniformly that no one would ever recognise its outrageously evil nature or purpose?

Letʼs look at more evidence….

Letʼs take the exact same references as above – this time from the (King James Bible) KJB printed by Hodder & Stoughton for the International Bible Society NIV © edition 1995.

1. James 2 v9:

But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law breakers.

2. Romans 2 v11

For God does not show favouritism.

3. Acts 10 v34

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism…”

Now Compare the 1380 quotations with their 1995 equivalents. Three times the word Ê»personʼ has been removed. Three times the word ‘favouritismʼ has been substituted.

Letʼs explore this idea further….

First, God declares Ê»personsʼ to be sinners and unacceptable; adopting a ‘person’, or ‘a presumed character’, it is an act of ‘concealment’.

625 years later, God apparently has second thoughts. ‘Favoritism’ is now the sin, and ‘persons’ are now unclassifiable, equally acceptable with all others, and absolved from sin. The evil of Ê»personsʼ that God first warned of has, miraculously, completely vanished. Now your life, your ‘dignity’, your “inherent value” that defines you as a “someone and not merely something”, all means naught — because “God does not show favouritism”.

How clever is that? And how morally and criminally reprehensible?

Today, despite what God may have said in the past, ʻartificial personsʼ are considered completely acceptable because favouritism is the new sin. So too are natural-persons, juristic persons, juridical persons, legal persons, moral persons and even LEGAL ENTITIES.

So…. who are you?

When you interact with government and the law, will you be treated as an ʻartificial personʼ, a ʻnatural personʼ, or your real living breathing self?

Do you do governments’ bidding? Do you comply with their every statute and law? DO you suffer every rule and regulation? Agree to every financial impediment and our constant state of debt? Accept every act of corporate back-scratching and profitable environmental irresponsibility? And bow to a state of tyranny and militaristic terror?

How many millions of us listen up, sit up, pay up and shut up…. then teach our children that government is for their personal protection and benefit?

Why do we religiously believe we must carry a small card to validate our existence, when offering that ID constitutes nothing more than agreeing (with government) that you will act as some “thing” you are not?

Why do thousands cry tears of blood every week when stripped of their ID or driverʼs licence, when that card has really belonged to, and defined, an ʻartificial personʼ from day one?

Have you been beguiled to believe the ‘artificial person’, which government so cleverly masked in word play, is you?

Do you understand the criminality of stripping you of your ʻlife characteristicsʼ, or the inverted morality involved in such a scheme?

Are you a flesh-and-blood, thinking, living being? Or an ‘artificial person’ that your ID endorses every time you present it?

Your consent

Where, on any ID card you have ever seen it stated, written or encoded that you are a living being, to the exclusion of all others?

You haven’t. And do you see why not? If others are not expressly excluded then legal entities, natural and artificial persons, can also be identified in the same way.

As a card-carrying ‘person’, you are considered no different to a ‘natural’ or ‘artificial person’. You have the same rights as a corporation. Every time you offer up your ID card, you grant government your consent to this arrangement. Every time you open an envelope addressed to someone that you think is you, but is really the ‘person’ that shares your name, you grant government your consent to be that Ê»personʼ- and to be treated accordingly.

Goodbye inalienable rights, hello dictates of government!

Your consent to be treated as a Ê»personʼ is all Government wants from you. And, by these methods and many more, you submit to all their statutes, laws, thievery and corruption – all because you have been taught that your ID is really you.

What does your ‘official’ ID card actually prove? Itʼs not proof of your true identity that government wants. What they want from you is your agreement to act as the Ê»personʼ they created.

Remember the phrase “Consent of the Governed”? Is its real meaning clearer now?

You hold the key

Despite all the lies, masks, obfuscations, falsifications, artificialities, political constructs and bloody-minded corruption (revealed over centuries), what still remains untainted and unblemished? What stands head and shoulders above all else – simple, pure, honest and without reproach?

You. The fact that you live.

Some feel incompetent to run their own lives, yet feel supremely competent to run the lives of others. Government are incompetent dependents on one hand, yet belligerently skilful manipulators on the other.

By nature, government is dependent. Your life, every breath that you take, is the life force on which they depend. Your life is their power, the only power they have. They give you an ID, as though you never had life before they granted it. They made a ‘natural person’ entity in your name, which ensures you interact appropriately with the legal and economic systems they have created around you. By exercising whatever force they consider necessary, they use this entity to strip you bare of the very life force they depend on.

But that entity is not you. It is a mask, and its name admits that fact.

Reclaiming you “ID”

Get a life? NO! You have it already.

Take back your life force. Grasp hold of those characteristics that clearly and unmistakably prove you are a unique expression of your creator. Take charge of those “life characteristics” as a breathing, flesh and blood human being. Identify those characteristics. Claim them. They belong to you.

Forget the “Birth Certificate” BS. Thatʼs one of their masking filters, a document used by government to create the ‘natural person’. A Birth Certificate only proves that “thing” of theirs got “birthed”. But that thing is NOT you! You were “born”.

Man is an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness, and that each human being has the sovereign right to their own life and to that which is required to sustain it.  It is now time to correct the injustice of  Corporate government. Their days are numbered…. In peaceful  defiance,  we will stop consenting to act on behalf of these false entities, created by government for its own benefit.

© Ken Bartle Jan 2014

References:

1 Williams, Thomas D. and Bengtsson, Jan Olof, “Personalism“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

About the author:

Ken BartleA 30 year pioneer of ‘solar house’ design in Australia, Ken has worked alongside Australia’s top architects, researched planned housing development in the United States and authored 4 professional publications. He has amassed 16 state, national and international awards, and delivered a paper to the World Renewable Energy Congress in 2007.

Exposure to building contracts and Land Planning regulations gave him a firm grasp of legal documentation, so when his son Scott first embarked on his expose of corrupt government in Australia, the pieces quickly fell into place for Ken. Aided by over 35 years study of Objectivist philosophy, the practical and moral nature of our corrupted ‘government’ system soon became clear.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. ~ Frederick Bastiat 1850

Ken believes man is an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness, absent of limits, and that each human being has the sovereign right to their own life and that which is required to sustain it. And today, grounded in both legal and philosophical understandings, Ken’s work is to help correct the injustice and remove the limitations of corporate government.

Learn more at AbsentLimits.net

 


Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus

 

Share your thoughts by adding your comments below.

 

  • 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.