The Freeman Movement and England

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Driving drunk is still driving drunk...
But it's not UNLAWFUL until you injure somebody or damage their property.

Why don't you drive drunk until you get stopped, you will soon find out its unlawful regardless of if you hurt anyone or not.
Please lets not have this stupid unlawful/illegal argument again, they are synonyms

Quote:

un·law·ful (n-lôfl)
adj.
1. Not lawful; illegal.
2. Contrary to accepted morality or convention; illicit.
3. Of, relating to, or being a child or children born to unmarried parents

Quote:

il·le·gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

My dictionaries do not say the same thing.

If you get some older Law dictionaries... 1910s, 1930s/40s, 1950s/60s, etc... you can see how some very key terms have changed over time, but they haven't changed entirely... only enough to be deceptive to most.

I think in Bouvier's dictionary, it actually defines a human being as a monster... so keep that in mind as well. You can't just look at a definition in a law dictionary and think you've hit the end. You have to keep filling in terms with the inner-terms to get the true answer.

Also... dictionaries made in the 2000s are not the understanding that Americans had when creating the Constitution and MOST statutes. Webster's 1828 is a better idea if you want to understand terms during the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I can't believe its actually possible to find an online version of the 1828 Webster's dictionary, but apparently it is popular among certain fringe religious groups. Anyway, please find below the definition of "person" found in that most sacred of all dictionaries, the Webster's 1828 edition:

Quote:

person

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.
A person is a thinking intelligent being.
2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.
A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.
3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.
You'll find her person difficult to gain.
The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.
4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.
5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.
These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.
6. Character of office.
How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.
7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.
8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.
In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.

Source: //1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,person

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Sounds like home.

Sounds terrible. Why haven't you left?

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

This is why you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

Let me show you why I do not...

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

Things like electricity are built upon a massive infrastructure bought by and paid for by tax dollars.

Electric companies here are PRIVATE. The government might have stolen money and then handed it over to a new corporation, but we do not own those companies.

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

The roads you drive on? Unless you drive on a Toll Road absolutely everywhere - and no one on the earth does this - then you are driving upon infrastructure bought and paid for by tax dollars.

Sales tax dollars... which we all put into. And not only just sales tax dollars, but excise sales tax dollars.. paid for by the huge percentage of taxes that go into gasoline tax. Those using AUTOMOBILES pay for all the road taxes and THEN some.

Income taxes do NOT go toward the roads.

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

Even by simply living in your house you are benefiting from police and fire services paid for by tax dollars. By posting on the internet right now, no matter who owns the computer you are posting from or what type of internet your paying for, you are using a government network that was paid for by tax dollars that was invented for government research. All of these things have a cost that in large part your monthly payments never touched, and they all were invented because no one in the private sector had any incentive to do so.

Invented by government research, yes. I'm not sure how you could consider that still a "government network that was paid for by tax dollars". No sir. Consumers have paid for the Internet completely without tax money, after the Government was done keeping it all to themselves for security-only purposes. Just because they come up with some algorithms and use some wires and a couple connectors... does not mean that our income tax money goes to the Internet. It does not. Our income taxes go strictly to pay for unnecessary wars and crap like that. The ratio of tax to non-tax dollars that have paid for the Internet is probly 1:50,000.

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

You don't consent to pay taxes? Thats fine. Get off our roads, get off our internet, stop using our utilities, and move out to the middle of a forest somewhere that has no police or fire protection. All of these things are benefits for members of the society that come at a cost - if you decline to pay that cost, you don't get to benefit. Until you do that you are nothing but a freeloader and a leach.

I do not consent to paying income taxes, because they don't go to anything but wars and congressmen with bad habits. There is not ONE legitimate benefit that I have EVER received from the government that I did not pay for. Water and Roads, sure... but I pay for those just like everybody else. Everything is PRIVATE. Everything.

The roads belong to me and everybody else in my country. They are not the government's. There are countless supreme court cases that affirm this.

Obviously, I'm not sure what things are like in the UK, but our tax monies don't go toward health care for me. They don't go toward internet. They don't go toward electricity. My great aunt paid $3,000 a year for me to go to a Catholic elementary and high school after I was slung against the wall in the bathroom by my teacher in the 1st grade at an elementary school.

My life would probly suck really bad if I hadn't told my mom what the teacher did to me that day.

But yea... the roads belong to EVERYONE. Sorry. EVERYONE pays the excise taxes at the pump. We pay something like 25% gas tax for the roads as it is. What makes you think that someone who is driving (obviously paying that excise gas tax) ISN'T paying for the roads??

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by grndslm

It's the only logical solution to the problems of taxation.

It really wouldn't be all that different when you factor in the excise taxes on things we should curb back from using.

Logical solution, perhaps. Practical, not even close.

Are you really proposing that central government should be at the whim of market forces?

Originally Posted by grndslm

If they need to "balloon rapidly", perhaps the alternate... "decrease spending" would be a swell idea?

But there is no way to provide the services in the absence of funding. And further, that will result in job losses and more lack of spending.

Originally Posted by grndslm

And...?? Government agents should only be working voluntarily anyway, not for pay.

Why? They have to live and put food on the table like any one else.
Why should they do it for free?

Originally Posted by grndslm

It's the only logical solution to the problems of taxation.

It really wouldn't be all that different when you factor in the excise taxes on things we should curb back from using.

Logical solution, perhaps. Practical, not even close.

Are you really proposing that central government should be at the whim of market forces?

Originally Posted by grndslm

If they need to "balloon rapidly", perhaps the alternate... "decrease spending" would be a swell idea?

But there is no way to provide the services in the absence of funding. And further, that will result in job losses and more lack of spending.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Anything more than $10,000 for a congressman is way too much. Cut spending there first.

Of course you can live on $10,000 per year. I believe you. not.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Stop building the military industrial complex and keep a good defense.

You appear to fail to see the inherent contradiction in this statement.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Many solutions to decrease spending if you get down to it. It's not my fault that you can't think of them all by yourself.

Sure, politicians have to make hard decisions as to spending. Thats why we have not been back to the moon for example.

Originally Posted by grndslm

You're probly right. I've long thought that sales tax & property tax should be the two components. New Hampshire only has property tax, but they have a little sales tax that goes toward the county level. New Hampshire really is a model state in many aspects. That's why they've got the Free State Project.

I know. Tax codes generally try to reach a balance between the min requirement to provide services, and the min that folks can sustain. It is not easy, particularly given the current economic climate.

Originally Posted by grndslm

It came from putting us in a pot full of water and gradually turning the heat up. I realize.

What can I say? the current situation is poor. nuff said.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Like I've said before, look to Egypt as an example that quibbles are not all that we are left with.

Well, colour me unimpressed. There has been middle east turmoil for years. What is so different about this current turmoil?

Originally Posted by grndslm

Electricity and gas are private corporations.

And?

Originally Posted by grndslm

I went to private schol... so clearly, I have not used a single thing from the government. We don't have universal health care either, so ... nope not using the government for jack.

And? So what that you went to private school. It means precisely nothing to me. Sure I have health insurance, but so what?

Originally Posted by grndslm

Do you realize the number of Supreme Court cases that CLAIM the "de facto government" does NOT own the roads?? They were paid for by the people for all men's PUBLIC use.

If the gov doesn't do it who will? you?

[quote=grndslm;6880295]
If you use the roads for PRIVATE, commercial gain, then you are required to have a license. Everybody here pays for the roads in the form of sales tax @ the gas pumps. They ADMIT that the roads belong to the people and we have the RIGHT to use them. The roads DO NOT belong to the government.
/QUOTE]

That's so wrong I don't know where to start.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Soo.. let's see... what benefit do I get from the government?? POLICE FORCE. That's it. That's all I have ever seen of the government my entire life. I have been stopped 3 or 4 times for exercising my right to FREE TRAVEL, on foot, or on bicycle... and am harassed about stealing things. They think I stole somebody's clothes??? I'm never carrying anything. They just want to be as intrusive as they possibly can.

If Americans saw the benefits that other countries have, maybe Lawful Rebellion wouldn't be on my mind so much.... but I really, really, really dislike the way governments are run here.

Ok, thats so wrong it is bordering on offensive.

In the last 2 years I had my mother die. We had an ambulance come take her to the hospital, FOC. the hospital cared for her, but she did not make it. All care was FOC.

Subsequently, I found my father collapsed on the kitchen floor, and ambulance was called. All FOC.

It is that care that your taxes pay for.

[Captain_Swoop]

As amusing as the last few pages have been they are all completely off topic for the thread, lets bring it back on a bit.

Quote:

So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name??

In the UK you have to give your name to a Police Officer when asked. If yopu don't then you will be arrrested for obstruction and taken into custody until you do identify yourself. It's open ended, they keep you locked up until you tell them who you are.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I am not a person, for sure.

I don't like the term human being either.

I prefer the term "MAN", just as my country's founders referred to themselves as -- "MEN".

They never referred to themselves as human beings, because a human being is like a neanderthal to them.

Here's Bouvier's (1914 ed.) definition of a Monster --

MONSTER. An animal which has conformation contrary to the order of nature. 2 Dungl. Hum. Phys. 422.
It is said that a monster, although born of a woman in lawful wedlock, cannot inherit. Those who have, however, the essential parts of the human form, and have merely some defect of conformation, are capable of inheriting, if otherwise qualified; 2 Bla. Com. 246; 1 Beck,... yadda yadda
No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape, can be lawfully destroyed. Traill, Med. Jur. 47... yadda yadda

You're not a person... you're a monster!!

Fascinating, except of course that, in its definition of "person", Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914 ed.) makes absolutely no mention of the word monster. Please find said definition as follows:

Quote:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who
are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not
exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be
a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or
whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered
according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to
which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it
imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an
artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L
R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative
acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear
in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1
Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females
or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and
functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals.
Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any
civil functions, except those which the law specially declares
them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and
slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural
liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not
forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a
master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with
persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons
for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as
to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men.
1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens,
(q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When
they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are
living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and
infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when
examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided
into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and
wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law,
see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

Source: supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldp1.htm (not permitted to post links yet)

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Why don't you drive drunk until you get stopped, you will soon find out its unlawful regardless of if you hurt anyone or not.

Define "drunk".

I don't ever get drunk, but I drink and drive almost everyday. Mississippi is the only state in the Union that does not have an "open container law". We are legally,lawfully allowed to drink and drive, provided our BAC is not about 0.08%... and I rarely drink beer fast enough to exceed that, but maybe once a year.

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

I can't believe its actually possible to find an online version of the 1828 Webster's dictionary, but apparently there is it is popular among certain fringe religious groups. Anyway, please find below the definition of "person" found in that most sacred of all dictionaries, the Webster's 1828 edition:

Source: //1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,person

OK... So where in that definition is the term corporation, as seen in every statutory definition of person and every law dictionary, in regards to a "person"???

That is not a law dictionary. I said that it would help when reviewing the meanings of words in reference to the Constitution.

It's still not a Law dictionary.

The point I'm trying to make is that... if legislature passes a statute with understanding-A... and then the law society decides to change the definitions of words in 2000 AD and newer law dictionaries... then they are attempting to change the original legislature's understanding-A. They will not succeed, provided that you have multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases.

Every statutory definition of person includes... corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, association, etc... and a "natural person", which is just a recursive definition... a natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (UNDEFINED)))).

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by grndslm

If you get some older Law dictionaries... 1910s, 1930s/40s, 1950s/60s, etc... you can see how some very key terms have changed over time, but they haven't changed entirely... only enough to be deceptive to most.

Using out of date sources can get you into all sorts of trouble, but the definition of "person" has never excluded natural persons - see the quotation from Stroud above.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by LukeB

Sounds terrible. Why haven't you left?

Dude... I'm a REBEL, not a BIZ-NATCH.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Define "drunk".

I don't ever get drunk, but I drink and drive almost everyday.

This is not something to be proud of. Hang your head in shame.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by grndslm

My great aunt paid $3,000 a year for me to go to a Catholic elementary and high school after I was slung against the wall in the bathroom by my teacher in the 1st grade at an elementary school.

If you use your posting history as evidence, you could probably get a refund.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

OK... So where in that definition is the term corporation, as seen in every statutory definition of person and every law dictionary, in regards to a "person"???

In definition #8 in fact.

Originally Posted by grndslm

That is not a law dictionary. I said that it would help when reviewing the meanings of words in reference to the Constitution.

It's still not a Law dictionary.

Why were you claiming that it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than a number of definitions from actual legal dictionaries then? Could be because you didn't agree with the definitions in the actual legal dictionaries and you were hoping that some obscure historic dictionary might back you up?

And even in the limited function of using it to aid in the interpretation of words in the Constitution, it doesn't support any of the arguments that you are making.

Originally Posted by grndslm

The point I'm trying to make is that... if legislature passes a statute with understanding-A... and then the law society decides to change the definitions of words in 2000 AD and newer law dictionaries... then they are attempting to change the original legislature's understanding-A. They will not succeed, provided that you have multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases.

First, the law society doesn't change legal definitions of words. The legislature or Parliament does, and if they haven't specifically defined a word that needs to be defined, the Courts do. Second, let alone "providing multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases", you haven't provided even one in support of your claims.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Every statutory definition of person includes... corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, association, etc... and a "natural person", which is just a recursive definition... a natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (UNDEFINED)))).

No, your claim is completely without support from any authority. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the at least half dozen authorities that have been posted in this thread, two of which authorities you even suggested yourself. Your claim has no merit at all.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Using out of date sources can get you into all sorts of trouble, but the definition of "person" has never excluded natural persons - see the quotation from Stroud above.

Just to be clear, I completely agree. I'm only citing these obscure out-of-date sources to illustrate the fact that even they do not support these arguments.

[LightinDarkness]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Let me show you why I do not...

Electric companies here are PRIVATE. The government might have stolen money and then handed it over to a new corporation, but we do not own those companies.

Sales tax dollars... which we all put into. And not only just sales tax dollars, but excise sales tax dollars.. paid for by the huge percentage of taxes that go into gasoline tax. Those using AUTOMOBILES pay for all the road taxes and THEN some.

Income taxes do NOT go toward the roads.

Invented by government research, yes. I'm not sure how you could consider that still a "government network that was paid for by tax dollars". No sir. Consumers have paid for the Internet completely without tax money, after the Government was done keeping it all to themselves for security-only purposes. Just because they come up with some algorithms and use some wires and a couple connectors... does not mean that our income tax money goes to the Internet. It does not. Our income taxes go strictly to pay for unnecessary wars and crap like that. The ratio of tax to non-tax dollars that have paid for the Internet is probly 1:50,000.

I do not consent to paying income taxes, because they don't go to anything but wars and congressmen with bad habits. There is not ONE legitimate benefit that I have EVER received from the government that I did not pay for. Water and Roads, sure... but I pay for those just like everybody else. Everything is PRIVATE. Everything.

The roads belong to me and everybody else in my country. They are not the government's. There are countless supreme court cases that affirm this.

Obviously, I'm not sure what things are like in the UK, but our tax monies don't go toward health care for me. They don't go toward internet. They don't go toward electricity. My great aunt paid $3,000 a year for me to go to a Catholic elementary and high school after I was slung against the wall in the bathroom by my teacher in the 1st grade at an elementary school.

My life would probly suck really bad if I hadn't told my mom what the teacher did to me that day.

But yea... the roads belong to EVERYONE. Sorry. EVERYONE pays the excise taxes at the pump. We pay something like 25% gas tax for the roads as it is. What makes you think that someone who is driving (obviously paying that excise gas tax) ISN'T paying for the roads??

And let me debunk you again:

1) It doesn't matter if electric company WHERE YOU LIVE ARE PRIVATE. They ALL - EVERY *SINGLE ONE OF THEM IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND* - are using a government tax payer funded infrastructure. That infrastructure exists because the cost of building out an electricity grid is enormous and so expensive that almost no one would be able to afford to pay for electricity if they were charged the full cost. You are FREELOADING off taxpayers by "declining" to pay taxes you don't like while having electricity due to these facts.

2)That isn't how sales taxes work - you don't get to pick and choose what you fund and what you don't want to fund. And in any case, there is no state I'm aware of where sales tax dollars fund the construction and maintenance of roads in their entirety. Yet again, you are FREELOADING off taxpayers by "declining" to pay taxes if you use roads. And yes, state and local income taxes more CERTAINLY DO go to roads, the fact that you don't know this just shows your absurd level of ignorance.

3) Wrong again - are you noticing a pattern here? The internet was invented because, yet again, its the type of product that no one had the incentive to create in the private sector. If it wasn't for tax dollars we wouldn't have the internet. And you are yet again simply ignorant about how reality works - the internet requires a huge infrastructure that the government PAID FOR and SUBSIDIZED WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS. You are a FREELOADER ON THE LAND by posting on the internet right now if you "decline" to pay income taxes, since those taxes both created and built internet infrastructure.

4) Your in denial again. I've already shown and debunked you that you receive numerous benefits from the government that you aren't paying for if you "decline" to pay income taxes. Among those include: utilities (your not paying for the infrastructure, taxpayer dollars are), the internet (same thing), roads, police protection, fire protection, etc. Yes, you even benefit from healthcare. Did you think in the United States that healthcare was not subsidized by the government? Again, your separating yourself from reality.

5) The roads belong to tax payers, not leaches like you. Get off my roads.

These are the facts. That you ignore the facts do not change them, it just shows that your willing to ignore reality to be a freeloader and leach on society. But the only person you are fooling is yourself.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Are you really proposing that central government should be at the whim of market forces?

I'm proposing that the government should be VOLUNTARY... that taxes need to be reduced dramatically... and that unnecessary wars need to cease and desist.

Originally Posted by abaddon

But there is no way to provide the services in the absence of funding. And further, that will result in job losses and more lack of spending.

Surely you've heard of the Federal Reserve. All that happens is... the President says, "We need $9 Trillion dollars in loans created out of thin air." The Fed goes, "OK" and makes it happen.

Originally Posted by abaddon

Why? They have to live and put food on the table like any one else.
Why should they do it for free?

They only work a few weeks out of the year. It's not like a real job. They should be required to work a real job if they want money. Have a business on the side. Get donations from their constituents. Something. Think outside the box, man. NH congressmen don't get paid more than $1 or $10... something like that. Mississippi congressmen are only paid $10,000/yr and have gas, food, & housing paid for. That is completely reasonable if you ask me. Why do other state congressmen need to get $100,000/yr???

Originally Posted by abaddon

Of course you can live on $10,000 per year. I believe you. not.

That's how it works here. You factor in the gas, food, & housing.. and they make about $20,000.

Do you know how many congressmen here own business on the side, like real estate agencies and stuff??

And do you realize how many days of the year they actually WORK?? Not even a quarter.

Originally Posted by abaddon

You appear to fail to see the inherent contradiction in this statement.

It would seem like a contradiction if you weren't familiar with what the military industrial complex actually was. It's NOT related to defense, but funneling 60% of our income taxes to the military. That's the Industrial Complex... and selling jets & choppers to middle eastern countries because there's nobody else to buy them.

Originally Posted by abaddon

Well, colour me unimpressed. There has been middle east turmoil for years. What is so different about this current turmoil?

The difference is that this Rebellion succeeded, and is now considered a Revolution!

Originally Posted by abaddon

And?

And somebody was telling me otherwise. Maybe in your country, but not mine.

Originally Posted by abaddon

And? So what that you went to private school. It means precisely nothing to me. Sure I have health insurance, but so what?

Did I direct that comment toward you?? If I did, then you should know it means I did not receive jack crap from the government. That's what we were talking about. What benefits do American receive from the government? Nothing but Policy Enforcer Harassment.

Originally Posted by abaddon

If the gov doesn't do it who will? you?

They do it on BEHALF of the PEOPLE. Do you realize what a representative is? Do you realize what an agent is??

Because we are the CREDITORS... we are the OWNERS.

Just because they "borrow" our own money to create roads does not mean that they get to retain ownership.

The government is ALWAYS in debt to the People.

Originally Posted by abaddon

That's so wrong I don't know where to start.

You should really look into the U.S. Supreme Court cases more often if you want to have this conversation.

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ok, thats so wrong it is bordering on offensive.

In the last 2 years I had my mother die. We had an ambulance come take her to the hospital, FOC. the hospital cared for her, but she did not make it. All care was FOC.

Subsequently, I found my father collapsed on the kitchen floor, and ambulance was called. All FOC.

It is that care that your taxes pay for.

My experience is nothing like yours.

My mother caught pneumonia. All they could do was keep her in a bed for 4 days. She's still paying off that $38,000 bill.

One time I had appendicitis, drove to the largest hospital here. THEY HAD NO SURGEON ON A FRIDAY NIGHT. They REQUIRED me to take an ambulance... even tho I said I was fine, and the other hospital was only a few miles down the way. That ambulance ride later ended up costing me more than $6,000.

Another time I got into an accident. I just wanted my lip stitched, but they required me to get CT scans, x-rays, etc. Just like I knew, I was feeling no pain and was busting out wisecracks left and right.

They take all that money... then when a friend of mine gets a glass bottle thrown in her face (eyes), they don't even catch that her actual eye was bleeding and let her go.

There's something incredibly wrong with the way things work here. I'm sure if you lived here, you wouldn't think everything's so fine and dandy yourself.

We are having everything taken away from us at ridiculous prices... and we aren't receiving ANYTHING in return... other than water, sewage, and roads. THAT'S IT. Absolutely NONE of that comes from income taxes.

[Jake Dale]

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

what does, whatever you consent to, have to do with me or anyone else?

Originally Posted by grndslm

Who said that it did??

that's pretty much what i wanted to hear. so i can do whatever i want, with impunity, with whatever you consent to.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

Fascinating, except of course that, in its definition of "person", Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914 ed.) makes absolutely no mention of the word monster.

It is not in the definition of a person. But a monster is a human being. Strange, no?

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

Source: supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldp1.htm (not permitted to post links yet)

You at least used a Law dictionary for a Law TERM...

Webster's is not a Law dictionary, so that's why there's no mention of corpoation, etc. within.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Using out of date sources can get you into all sorts of trouble, but the definition of "person" has never excluded natural persons - see the quotation from Stroud above.

You cannot provide "natural person" as a definition for person.

Do you understand what a recursive definition is??

Things that are similar are not the same, right??

So.. if a person is defined in a law dictionary as... corporation, association, partnership, etc... what makes you think a man would be included. A man is not included in the 4 or so law dictionaries I have a hold of.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by abaddon

This is not something to be proud of. Hang your head in shame.

For what reason??

One or two beers a day are healthy for you. It's when you exceed 2/day that you see liver, kidney, whatever problems.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

It is not in the definition of a person. But a monster is a human being. Strange, no?

mWell, I don't see where you've provided a definition of Monster that includes human being anywhere. But frankly, I have no idea why you've brought up the definition of monster in the first place?

Originally Posted by grndslm

You at least used a Law dictionary for a Law TERM...

Webster's is not a Law dictionary, so that's why there's no mention of corpoation, etc. within.

Firstly, you are the one who suggested that Webster's 1828 ed. was the definitive authority, not me. And secondly, it does mention that the definition of "person", above and beyond including natural persons, can also sometimes include corporations. It is definition #8. I've already pointed this out to you.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

Why were you claiming that it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than a number of definitions from actual legal dictionaries then? Could be because you didn't agree with the definitions in the actual legal dictionaries and you were hoping that some obscure historic dictionary might back you up?

I didn't say it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than anything else.

What I said is that it is important to understand the meaning of words at the time the Constitution was passed. And likewise with Law dictionaries for older statutes.

A 2000 Law dictionary that changes the meanings of terms to hide things from those who are unaware of historical meanings. Most law dictionaries after the 60s are fairly abridged, so you're missing a great deal by not looking at the older ones.

Same for Supreme Court cases... the farther back you read, the more you'll realize the intention of legislation. Supreme Court cases are an incredible resource with it comes to true intent of the Law.

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

And even in the limited function of using it to aid in the interpretation of words in the Constitution, it doesn't support any of the arguments that you are making.

Look up the definition for United States, federal, civil war, state, people, man as well. Then do that for Black's. Then do that for Bouvier's. Then keep going.

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

First, the law society doesn't change legal definitions of words. The legislature or Parliament does, and if they haven't specifically defined a word that needs to be defined, the Courts do. Second, let alone "providing multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases", you haven't provided even one in support of your claims.

First, we don't have parliament here. And when congress doesn't define a word, it's left up to the law society to publish their law dictionaries.

Check out how the term "Driver" has changed thru multiple revisions (incredibly sneaky)...

http://www.gemworld.com/US--DRIVER--...aning%20of.htm

Visit the site --> Freemen.Freeforums.org

----> Then visit the travel section to get an idea of some supreme court cases.

It's not like I'm hiding them from you, it's just that I'm too lazy to repeat myself.

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

No, your claim is completely without support from any authority. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the at least half dozen authorities that have been posted in this thread, two of which authorities you even suggested yourself. Your claim has no merit at all.

Look at that site and then tell me otherwise. That's just scratching the surface.

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

You cannot provide "natural person" as a definition for person.

Do you understand what a recursive definition is??

Things that are similar are not the same, right??

So.. if a person is defined in a law dictionary as... corporation, association, partnership, etc... what makes you think a man would be included. A man is not included in the 4 or so law dictionaries I have a hold of.

Good lord. Firstly, as far as I am aware, a "recursive definition" is a mathematical term that has absolutely nothing to do with statutory interpretation.

Secondly, you yourself suggested Bouiver's Law Dictionary as an authority source, and guess what? It includes man in the definition of "person". I'll post it again as you clearly missed it the first time:

Quote:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who
are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not
exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be
a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or
whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered
according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to
which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it
imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an
artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L
R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative
acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear
in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1
Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females
or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and
functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals.
Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any
civil functions, except those which the law specially declares
them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
etc., etc....

[Jake Dale]

by the way grndslm, i notice you mentioned a couple of times that you would not consent to something that does not benefit you.

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

Edited for civility.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

mWell, I don't see where you've provided a definition of Monster that includes human being anywhere. But frankly, I have no idea why you've brought up the definition of monster in the first place?

You actually quoted it and everything.

I brought it up to prove that if a monster is a human being (and a human being is a monster). I'm not a human being if we're using Bouvier's dictionary is my point.

If we're not using the same dictionary... we're going to run into all kindsa trouble. What's important is coming to an understanding of what certain terms mean. And... I'm using a tried and trusted American Encyclopedic Dictionary -- Bouvier's.

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

Firstly, you are the one who suggested that Webster's 1828 ed. was the definitive authority, not me. And secondly, it does mention that the definition of "person", above and beyond including natural persons, can also sometimes include corporations. It is definition #8. I've already pointed this out to you.

Surely you could just quote me saying "definitive authority". I intended to say, if I did not... that Webster's is a much better aid for understanding the American Constitution and the meaning words at the creation of my country... than a dictionary created after the 1960s.

Sometime during the 60s, most textbooks & dictionaries suffered a serious decrease in quality. To hide things? To dumb us down? Probly a little bit of both.

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by grndslm

It is not in the definition of a person. But a monster is a human being. Strange, no?

Hang on a minute, you said that "monster" was the definition of a person.
In post 5154 you said:

Quote:

I think in Bouvier's dictionary, it actually defines a human being as a monster...

So now that you've been proved wrong you're twisting what you said.
LOL.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

In Ohio, no lights are required. I made sure call and ask while I was there. We were staying near one of the largest Amish communities in the country (world?)...

Driving drunk is still driving drunk...
But it's not UNLAWFUL until you injure somebody or damage their property.

Speeding is still speeding...
Even if you're on a skateboard.

... AND...??

751.06 STANDARDS FOR OPERATION.
(a) The horse-drawn carriage shall, at all times when in use as such:
(1) Display adequate headlights, taillights and a passenger display light as
approved by the Director.
(2) Display a reflectorized slow moving vehicle emblem in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.11.
(3) Display, visible to the side at night, a light and/or reflectorization as
determined by the Director.
(4) Be equipped with seats for the operator and all passengers.
(5) Seat not more than eight occupants, to include the operator.
(6) Maintain a rubber surface on the wheel traction surface in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.25
(7) Not be wider than eight feet, to include fenders, running boards and
safety mirrors and devices.


ETA:if a person is stopped and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and either fails or refuses a blood alcohol or chemical test, the officer seizes the offender’s drivers license on the spot, serves notice of suspension and sends the offender’s drivers license to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn

Good lord. Firstly, as far as I am aware, a "recursive definition" is a mathematical term that has absolutely nothing to do with statutory interpretation.

Secondly, you yourself suggested Bouiver's Law Dictionary as an authority source, and guess what? It includes man in the definition of "person". I'll post it again as you clearly missed it the first time:

Law Dictionaries are of no use in statutory definitions. Do you understand this??

There is no statutory definition I have seen that includes a human being, and if it did... it's not defined... so I can pull out Bouvier's and show that a monster is a human being, and I'm no monster, so I'm not a human being. Pretty simple, really.

But most every statutory definition that I have come across here does NOT include anything more than what I have stated -- corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural person.

NOWHERE is a "MAN" mentioned in a statutory definition that I am aware of.

Perhaps "human being" is.. but that ain't me, either. Human means "of man", and that ain't me.

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

by the way grndslm, i notice you mentioned a couple of times that you would not consent to something that does not benefit you.

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

Edited quoted remark.

Good Lord, man. You're really starting to bug me more than anybody else with your short, repetitive posts.

Just quote me, people... if I say something.. and you want to discuss it... then QUOTE me. K? Otherwise, I'm going to presume you're full of ****, like everybody else who makes claims on my behalf without quoting me.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and address the argument, not the arguer and please keep the discussion civil or posts will be moved to AAH.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

NOW SPIT OUT YOUR POINT, BEFORE I IGNORE YOU.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Hang on a minute, you said that "monster" was the definition of a person.
In post 5154 you said:


So now that you've been proved wrong you're twisting what you said.
LOL.

I said "I think".

Then I pulled out the dictionary to get it correct.

Comprendes?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Define "drunk".

I don't ever get drunk, but I drink and drive almost everyday. Mississippi is the only state in the Union that does not have an "open container law". We are legally,lawfully allowed to drink and drive, provided our BAC is not about 0.08%... and I rarely drink beer fast enough to exceed that, but maybe once a year.

OK... So where in that definition is the term corporation, as seen in every statutory definition of person and every law dictionary, in regards to a "person"???

That is not a law dictionary. I said that it would help when reviewing the meanings of words in reference to the Constitution.

It's still not a Law dictionary.

The point I'm trying to make is that... if legislature passes a statute with understanding-A... and then the law society decides to change the definitions of words in 2000 AD and newer law dictionaries... then they are attempting to change the original legislature's understanding-A. They will not succeed, provided that you have multiple dictionaries and supreme court cases.

Every statutory definition of person includes... corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, association, etc... and a "natural person", which is just a recursive definition... a natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (corporation, firm, partnership, co-partnership, natural (UNDEFINED)))).

BAC .08 or greater.

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I said "I think".

Then I pulled out the dictionary to get it correct.

Comprendes?

OK
I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge your mistake.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by abaddon

This is not something to be proud of. Hang your head in shame.

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by tsig

751.06 STANDARDS FOR OPERATION.
(a) The horse-drawn carriage shall, at all times when in use as such:
(1) Display adequate headlights, taillights and a passenger display light as
approved by the Director.
(2) Display a reflectorized slow moving vehicle emblem in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.11.
(3) Display, visible to the side at night, a light and/or reflectorization as
determined by the Director.
(4) Be equipped with seats for the operator and all passengers.
(5) Seat not more than eight occupants, to include the operator.
(6) Maintain a rubber surface on the wheel traction surface in conformance
with Ohio R.C. 4513.25
(7) Not be wider than eight feet, to include fenders, running boards and
safety mirrors and devices.

Well... I called the Nelson Township police (think it was actually a town over that started with a 'G', since Nelson Township didn't have its own police), and they assured me that the slow moving reflector was all that was required.

Don't live there, so had no need to continue my research.

Originally Posted by tsig

ETA:if a person is stopped and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and either fails or refuses a blood alcohol or chemical test, the officer seizes the offender’s drivers license on the spot, serves notice of suspension and sends the offender’s drivers license to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

In any state in the Union, excluding Mississippi... you will likely be arrested if ANYONE in the automobile has an open container of alcohol.

In Mississippi... you MUST have a BAC of 0.08% or greater before you can be arrested. However, no breathalyzer or field sobriety test of any kind is required to give you a misdemeanor public drunk charge and lock you up.

If it were me, I wouldn't give any ID and wouldn't even speak with them to begin with. If they ask for a name, I'll tell them KYLE. What's your last name? Who said I need to have a last name?? Is a last name required? Am I required to have a Date of Birth?? Am I required to have an address?? Am I required to have a Social Security Number??

No, actually... I'm not.

At worst, they could lock me up under John Doe for 3 days, but then I'd get to teach a lot of "criminals" about how statutory law doesn't apply to them. I'd love nothing more than playing pool at the county work centers. Our jail has 2 pool tables, tho the felt is ripped up all over and sticks have NO tips. Not such a bad place. They get real eggs and everything. What a great benefit my society offers...

[jargon buster]

Quote:

There is no statutory definition I have seen that includes a human being, and if it did... it's not defined...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/1...man%20being%22

Quote:

4. Any preparation or other product consisting of one or more component parts, any of which contains a controlled drug, where—

(a)the preparation or other product is not designed for administration of the controlled drug to a human being or animal;

here, another 48
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?text=human%20being

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by tsig

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

Alex Libmann the second.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by tsig

BAC .08 or greater.

Correct. I said .08% or about, but meant above. That is what "drunk" is statutorily defined as.

Originally Posted by tsig

Bragging about breaking a law on the internet is most unwise. There could be a Mississippi state trooper, a county sheriff, a city cop or one of their friends or relatives on this board.

You did not ever see me state that I drive drunk.

In fact, I stated... "I do not ever drive drunk, but I drink and drive nearly everyday"... or something to that effect.

How do you interpret that to mean I am breaking the law and bragging about it??

Once again.. Mississippi is the only state in the Union that does not have an open container law. Every other state the driver will likely be given a DUI even if he hasn't had a sip to drink, but somebody in the backseat is drinking. In Mississippi, I've actually had a cop tell me that the driver can be double-fisting beers for all he cares, provided that the driver's BAC is not above .08%.

It is perfectly legal and lawful to do what I do here. It makes no sense to arrest someone if they weren't drinking. Likewise, it makes no sense to arrest someone if they just started drinking. It's no different than drinking a Root Beer in the car, is it??

[solzhenitsyn]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I didn't say it was a more authoritative source for legal interpretation than anything else.

What I said is that it is important to understand the meaning of words at the time the Constitution was passed. And likewise with Law dictionaries for older statutes.

A 2000 Law dictionary that changes the meanings of terms to hide things from those who are unaware of historical meanings. Most law dictionaries after the 60s are fairly abridged, so you're missing a great deal by not looking at the older ones.

Well, I completely disagree with this. However, that notwithstanding, you haven't provided even One historic dictionary, legal or otherwise, that supports any of the arguments you have been making.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Same for Supreme Court cases... the farther back you read, the more you'll realize the intention of legislation. Supreme Court cases are an incredible resource with it comes to true intent of the Law.

Look up the definition for United States, federal, civil war, state, people, man as well. Then do that for Black's. Then do that for Bouvier's. Then keep going.

What on earth would I be looking for?

Originally Posted by grndslm

First, we don't have parliament here. And when congress doesn't define a word, it's left up to the law society to publish their law dictionaries.

No, no its not. Its left up to the Courts. I assure you. Sometimes the Courts may rely on a legal dictionary as a resource when defining words, but again, those dictionaries are in no way published by the law society of any jurisdiction. Please provide me with one such example.

Originally Posted by grndslm

Check out how the term "Driver" has changed thru multiple revisions (incredibly sneaky)...




Visit the site -->


----> Then visit the travel section to get an idea of some supreme court cases.

It's not like I'm hiding them from you, it's just that I'm too lazy to repeat myself.


Look at that site and then tell me otherwise. That's just scratching the surface.

Against my better judgement, I actually accepted your offer. I remain thoroughly unconvinced, to say the least.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by grndslm

You cannot provide "natural person" as a definition for person.

I didn't. I pointed out that natural persons (i.e. human beings) are and always have been a category of "persons". Do you need a Venn diagram to explain it?

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Alex Libmann the second.

I can't believe the number of people here who do not comprehend the words that come out of my mouth...

and we speak the same language just about.



Continuity gaps, Fabrications, Ignorance...

What kinda place is this??

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I didn't. I pointed out that natural persons (i.e. human beings) are and always have been a category of "persons". Do you need a Venn diagram to explain it?

I need you to show me a statute in my country, state that uses the term person.

Then I'll need you to show me the definition within that very same statute for the term "person".

It will NOT say "man". It will say natural person.

You CANNOT define a person with a natural person. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE.

IT'S A TRICK.