YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD
The word "person" is used in many laws.
If you don't know what the term means, you might think that you are
one of these.
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
`person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does,
legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to
understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a
true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper
use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the
status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or
physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical
persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."
People are not persons.
On the next page you will read legal definitions of the word
`person'. As you will see,
persons are defined as non-sovereigns.
A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes.
A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to
In the United States the people are sovereign over
their civil servants:
(NIV): "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to
obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey..."
Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939 @ 943:
sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the
different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the
government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion.
Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency,
and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state government."
1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:
Our government is founded upon compact.
Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:
of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King,
by his prerogative."
US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:
United States, as a whole, emanates from the people... The people, in
their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution..."
US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd
The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have
no power to delegate what is not delegated to them.
But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they
have delegated and intrust to whom they please.
...The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the
state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own
US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356,
sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself
remains with the people.."
Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case.
You might get the impression that the legislature can write
perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the
intent of the people. It's as if servants do not make rules for their
masters. It's as if the
Citizens who created government were their masters.
It's as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority.
You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1. You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3
. Imagine that! Isn't
it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror
to good works? Isn't it a
shame that you enlisted to obey them?
US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421:
is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of
the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people,
and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their
Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442
US 653, 667 (1979):
common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and
statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604,
61 S.Ct 742 (1941):
in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes
employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of
America, 330 U.S. 258 67
common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and
statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."
US Supreme Court in US v. Fox, 94 US 315:
in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign,
statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude
U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D.
common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and
statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice,
612 F.2d 417 @425 (1979):
word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which
normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human
beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. § para 1."
In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US
330) the Supreme Court found that:
United States, sovereignty resides in people... the Congress cannot invoke
the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus
That's right! According
to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons.
This all makes sense, after all, servants don't make
rules for their masters.
In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax,
tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial US
v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript.
On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims that
"an individual is somebody with a social security number."
For the advanced student:
The 1936 conference of Governors made a promise to
pay the interest on the national debt from the future earnings of its
federal citizens. This is as
valid as any other promise to pay, as is a promissory note.
As with any mortgage or loan it can be sold or even foreclosed.
When it is sold, the collateral is transferred with it.
The following is speculation.
The pieces of the puzzle seem to fit together when
you take the word “PERSON” to a third level of abstraction. Suppose that the word “PERSON” refers to a government
When a birth certificate is filed with a state, the
federal government creates a “strawman corporation” with the same name
as the baby, except the name is all capitalized.
This corporation is the all capitalized name that you see on
“your” ID, which is not you and is not even a proper noun. It is the corporation that gets a social security number.
This would be consistent with the Constitution that prohibits
people from getting welfare. Only
the corporation can get a bank loan or earn interest.
This would explain how the government gets around the usury laws.
Only the corporation can get a driver’s license or passport, or
declare bankruptcy or pay probate or fill prescriptions. Only the corporation can pay taxes (which otherwise would be
unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax). The state marries and divorces the corporations, while the
flesh remain husband and wife until death do they part (as in Romans
7:2,3) because the government cannot put asunder any family relationship.
Attorneys must represent corporations.
After the corporate child is created, the federal
government then opens a Treasury Account into which it makes an account
entry of the estimated value of all future earnings.
It then uses the Governors’ promise to pay this account as
collateral for another loan on the national debt.
This corporation remains unconnected to you until you volunteer to
pay its debts. To become
surety to pay it’s debts, all you have to do is voluntarily sign a W-4
form or a 1040 form or pay a license fee.
This becomes a solutio
indebiti. You won’t
believe that such a thing exists, but according to the law dictionary: “From
the payment of which is not due arises an obligation ... and includes
also the case where one performed labor for another, or assumed to pay a
debt for which he was not bound, or relinquished a right or released a
debt, under the impression that he was legally bound to do so.”
|Lamentations 5:8 (KJV) "Servants have ruled
over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their