14 Feb 2019

What sort of 'Person' are you?

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”.

The first word to consider when analyzing definitions of words, should really be the word ‘define’ or ‘definition’.  A definition is an exact statement of the exact meaning of a word. In defining a word, we are looking to narrow the scope for misinterpretation, to take a word from a potentially infinite range of meanings and get as close as possible to a finite meaning through a process we call definition.  This is an honest process with the intention of seeking clear meaning and avoiding misinterpretation.  A definition should provide an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.  The degree of definition of something relates to its clarity, the more highly defined something is the greater its clarity.  The more accurate we can be with our definitions of words or concepts, the better our clarity of meaning, therefore translating into a greater understanding of those words and concepts.

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.

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: