The British government controls and regulates the members of its society with statutory 'laws'. We are governed and policed through our presumed consent as members of this society. The statutory system recognises its members as ‘subjects’, ‘citizens’ and ‘persons’. It is valuable to try and understand the true
definition of a ‘person’, from the State system’s perspective. This may help in understanding how the State
regards its subjects, what standing they have in that jurisdiction, and indeed
if they lawfully belong there.
 |
| SUA CUIQUE PERSONA - “To each his own mask”. |
From
my experience and research, the current statutory system can and will
only deal with ‘persons’, but the type of person it will normally
deal with, while not exactly synonymous with the flesh and blood, is always
attached, for better or worse, to a man, woman or child.
In a
Common Law situation, no use of deceptive or misleading language, words or
symbols is permitted, only common English and a meeting of the minds for
coherent communication of meanings and intentions.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” – James Maddison
The
statutory legal system requires “interpretation” by trained and licensed legal
experts because it is communicated in an exclusive language called
legalese. Without being a fully trained
expert in legalese it is impossible to know exactly what is being agreed to in
this system of contractual regulation, which is in itself unlawful because authentic
consent cannot be properly realised.
The definition of the word ‘person’ is
an important example of the great potential of being mislead within
the statutory legal system. If the
definition used in common language is different to the one used to enforce
statute, then the public are at a distinct disadvantage and arguably may even
be the victims of a deception and fraud, which at common law is a crime.
English dictionary definitions of ‘person’ mean what most people would expect from common English:
Oxford dictionary - "A human being regarded as an individual."
Collins dictionary - "A person is a man, woman, or child."
Macmillan dictionary – "An individual human, usually an adult."
Merriam-Webster – "Human, Individual."
The etymology of the word person is derived from the Latin word ‘persona’ means ‘actor's mask’. There are several definitions of ‘person’ in Blacks
Law Dictionary alone:
- A human being. [No further legal definition for ‘human being’ is given]
- An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognised by law as having the rights & duties of a human being.
- Artificial Person: An entity, such as a corporation, created by law. Also termed a fictitious person; juristic person; legal person; moral person.
- Natural Person: A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
- Personality – The legal status of one regarded by the law as a person; the legal conception by which the law regards a human being or an artificial entity as a person.
- Also termed legal personality.
It can therefore be appreciated that in the
legal language of ‘Legalese’ the definition of the word or title of ‘person’
has many different meanings and statuses.
It’s also worth noting that although Blacks Law Dictionary uses the
description “human being” to define the person, it fails to define and
recognise what a human being is in law.
Clarity on this issue is of paramount importance.
Many well researched individuals argue that, by legal definition, a ‘human-being’ is NOT a ‘legal
person’, however a human-being may possess a ‘legal person’ that is created as
a legal entity via the statutory legal system.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856. - Person –
“In
law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms.”
In UK legislation, The Interpretation
Act 1978 goes part of the way in defining a ‘person’:
In
Schedule 1 – Definitions –
“ " British subject " and "
Commonwealth citizen " have the same meaning, that is –
1948 c. 56. (a) a person who under the
British Nationality Act 1948 is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or
who under any enactment for the time being in force in a country mentioned in
section 1(3) of that Act is a citizen of that country ;”
" Person " includes a body of
persons corporate or unincorporate.
[1889]”
1889
c.63 (5) includes this definition for "PERSON":
“(5) The definition of "person ", so
far as it includes bodies corporate, applies to any provision of an Act
whenever passed relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary
conviction.”
Both above definitions use the word
"includes" but do not define "PERSON".
The next logical question must be, “What is the legal definition of
a ‘subject’ and a ‘citizen’?
By definition, as a noun, a ‘subject’
is someone who submits to the rule of another - “One who is under the rule of
another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or
ruler.”
A citizen, by definition, “is a member of a jural society, (civitas),
possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person
under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.”
– 2nd Ed. Blacks.
It is worth repeating that 'subjects' and 'citizens' are subject to the jurisdiction of the State by consent, however the Government is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Common Law of the People.
Jurisprudence, 1924.
In his award winning 1924 book,
‘Jurisprudence’ (7th Ed.) the British professor of law and
Solicitor-General for New Zealand: Sir John Salmond states:
“It is not permissible to adopt the simple
device of saying that a person means a human being” - s.108, p.272.
“In the law there may be men who are not
persons; slaves, for example, are destitute of legal personality in any system,
which regards them as incapable of either rights or liabilities. Like cattle, they are things and the object
of rights; not persons and the subjects of them.” -
s.108, p.272
“Conversely there are, in the law, persons who
are not men. A joint-stock company or a municipal corporation is a person in
legal contemplation.” - s.108, p.272
“Persons as so defined are of two kinds,
distinguishable as natural and legal.” - s.108, p.272
“A natural person is a being to whom the law
attributes personality in accordance with reality and truth. Legal persons are
beings, real or imaginary, to whom the law attributes personality by way of
fiction, when there is none in fact.”
“Natural persons are persons in fact as well
as in law; legal persons are persons in law but not in fact.”
Of
the two kinds of person, Prof. Salmond states that “The only natural persons are human beings.” - s109, p.273.
"Persons,'" says Coke,
"are of two sorts, persons natural created of God, and persons incorporate
or politique created by the policy of man (and therefore they are called bodies
politique;” (s.114, p.282)
Body
Politic – “When it refers to
corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations
shall be considered as an artificial person.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.
“A legal person is any subject-matter to which
the law attributes a merely legal or fictitious personality.”… “this
recognition of persons who are not men, is one of the most noteworthy feats of
the legal imagination”.
“Legal persons, being the arbitrary creations
of the law, may be of as many kinds as the law pleases. Those which are actually
recognised by our own system, however, all fall within a single class, namely
corporations or bodies corporate.” (s.113, p.280)
The Person’s Case
The legal definition of the word
‘person’ made an internationally significant appearance in the courts in 1928,
both in Canada and England in what became known as the ‘The Canadian Famous
Five and the Person's Case’.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (1982) guarantees that "every individual is equal before and
under the law... without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability,". Until 1929, women could not be appointed to
the Senate or hold public office even if they were granted the right to vote in
federal elections in 1918. In fact, one simple word denied women access to the
Senate and public life. The word "persons" in the Canadian
Constitution did not include women.
A group of dedicated female activists
from Alberta, known as the "Famous Five," supported by various groups
and associations in Canada, struggled vigorously to change the existing legal
definition of a ‘person’. Using a section of the Supreme Court Act allowing
constitutional change if petitioned by at least five citizens, these women
requested an answer to the question about whether women could serve in the
Canadian Senate. The Canadian Supreme Court denied their claim, stating that
women were not classed as ‘persons’ in legislation. The final and decisive response came from the
Privy Council in England on October 18, 1929, which made a ruling that women
were entitle to be regarded legally as ‘persons’. Today Canada celebrates “Person’s Day” every
October 18th in memory of this.
Summing up
The use of the term, name or title of ‘Person’ is in itself not negative, but we do need to be aware of the form and context in which it is used in the Statutory legal system. There are in effect three types of ‘person’ which in our own language are easily identified:
The first person – I, though, me, my, mine, myself, we, us, our, ours and ourselves.
The second person – you, yours, yourself and yourselves.
The third person – he, she, it, they, them, their, theirs and themselves.
In the Statutory system there are also types of person, identifications which are recognised and affected differently by statutes. The first person (man/woman) is regarded as the ‘Natural Person’, the 'propria persona' as Office of Man or Woman. The second person (Agent) is known as an ‘Artificial Person’ in 'sui juris' (“one’s own right”) as Agent of the Principal. The third person (Thing) is known as the ‘Legal Person’ or ‘Statutory Person’ or ‘Surrogate Person’ in 'alieni juris' (“under the control of another as ward, lunatic or infant”). In a Statutory court, unless you are able to prove your standing and capacity as a fully grown, informed and aware man/woman, the court will assume that you are a ward of the State, a ‘thing’ over which it claims absolute control and jurisdiction.
The use of the term, name or title of ‘Person’ is in itself not negative, but we do need to be aware of the form and context in which it is used in the Statutory legal system. There are in effect three types of ‘person’ which in our own language are easily identified:
The first person – I, though, me, my, mine, myself, we, us, our, ours and ourselves.
The second person – you, yours, yourself and yourselves.
The third person – he, she, it, they, them, their, theirs and themselves.
In the Statutory system there are also types of person, identifications which are recognised and affected differently by statutes. The first person (man/woman) is regarded as the ‘Natural Person’, the 'propria persona' as Office of Man or Woman. The second person (Agent) is known as an ‘Artificial Person’ in 'sui juris' (“one’s own right”) as Agent of the Principal. The third person (Thing) is known as the ‘Legal Person’ or ‘Statutory Person’ or ‘Surrogate Person’ in 'alieni juris' (“under the control of another as ward, lunatic or infant”). In a Statutory court, unless you are able to prove your standing and capacity as a fully grown, informed and aware man/woman, the court will assume that you are a ward of the State, a ‘thing’ over which it claims absolute control and jurisdiction.
In the common language sense, by legal
definition, only a “natural person” can be considered by the statutory legal
system as a breathing, flesh and blood ‘human being’ with inalienable
human-rights at Common Law.
The only other alternative within the
statutory system is to be an ‘artificial person’: that is, an entity, such as a
“persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man, created by law”
also called a ‘fictitious person’, ‘juristic person’ or ‘legal person’.
If dealing with the statutory legal system in
any way, it is worth knowing which status of person you are being classed
as: a ‘natural person’ with Common Law
rights, or an ‘artificial person’, a legal fiction without human rights or Common Law rights.
If the statutory system operates upon
assumption and presumption of your awareness and knowledge, which it apparently
does, it is in the defendant’s best interest to seek clarity and
definition from the outset.
The legal person is the title of the
contract - the agreement where you consented, through the signature of registration of birth, to enter into the statutory
jurisdiction of the Crown Corporation. It is this
contract which is in fact the real fiction of the whole system, because it's
simply fraudulent. It’s all based on a
‘beneficial claim’ standpoint. The
jurisdiction of the State is in effect claiming that the members of its society
have voluntarily agreed and consented to give over beneficial use of themselves
and their efforts, some call this ‘sweat equity’, to the benefit of the State,
in return for the ‘privileges’ of citizenship.
Registering into the jurisdiction of the State in return for protections
or privileges of some kind which come with agreed obligations, such as adhering
to State policies - statutes.
The fraud which makes the contract a
fiction centers around the fact that you never knowing consented to enter into
a contract with this society, with the 'State', with the Crown Corporation of London. The system
appears to have bypassed the essential formality of full and proper contractual
disclosure and is operating under the presumption and assumption that you know
what your parents registered you into, even though they had no idea themselves.
This claim of a fraud must be
addressed by the courts. It is fair to say that the registration into this
society was uninformed, deceitful and that you are a victim of infancy as you
were signed into this without your consent as a baby. The State must then rebut this claim by
producing proof that this contract was fully informed and legitimately
consented to. The Crown Corporation is fraudulently
staking a claim as a false beneficiary of your estate. Your estate includes all property, and
property includes your rights.
Meet your Stawman:
The Hidden Power of the Private (Natural) Person:
