Quoting
some of the «statutory» reference. Have you not ever wondered why the word/spelling of «PERSONS» is somehow accepted as a grammatically correct plural-form of the word PERSON, instead of using the word «people» ? Yet, when it comes to words like Goose, the plural-form is Geese, not Gooses (yes, yes, the word «Moose» is not converted to Meese, but
«Mooses» is also grammatically incorrect).
In that language (Legalese) that
looks like English (Legalese) and
sounds like English (Legalese), but is
not actually English (Legalese), the words that you take for granted as meaning the same thing as how they are used in common-parlance actually causes many of you to unknowingly commit
perjury when you are speaking to anybody who might in any way be involved in using any court-system against you (
especially the U.S. courts that contain over 50% of the whole entire world's liars... I mean lawyers... wait, lawyers
are liars...).
Also,
The United States Code is Not the Law, nor are Statutes.
«All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God’s laws; All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process….»
Rodrigues v. United States Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir.) (1984)
(Note: For those who choose to read the above-quoted case itself in its entirety, but are not very well-versed in how the law-system operates, you might come away from the reading thinking that this was a lost case by the Plaintiff and thus an invalid reference; how-ever, the case is filed under the «
opinion» category, but it
did also reveal
that «administrative» procedures
cannot be reviewed and that a «constitution»
does not protect you from «administrative-courts» since such types of Article I Administrative-Courts actually operate as a
PRIVATE BUSINESS and
not as a
Transparent Public Government-Entity, and was why Federal-Court could not gain Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over the issues the Plaintiff brought forth in his Complaint/s).
«The 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.»
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425
(Note: The
summary is essentially «'The word "person"»
is [according to
Legalese] «a variety of entities
other than human beings'» ...also, for those who are not very well-versed in Legalese-definitions, who thinks that the word «includes» infers «but not limited
to» ...nope, includes is literally
mutually exclusive to anything that is not listed as part of what is
included)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127
The term “person” and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a juristic person as well as a natural person. The term “juristic person” includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law.
The term “person” also includes the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States. The United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
The term “person” also includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
All statutory definitions of a «person» always refers to the corporate-entity. Yes, they may use terms like «Natural Person» (and there is also the «Juristic Person» term), but the
only difference that makes is along the lines of how a «Person Naturalized in the United States» becomes a «Natural Person» as opposed to an «Alien Person» ...only «people» and «man» are the
non-corporation terms to use for what many of you mistakenly refer to and call human-beings. Etymologically, the word «man» (or mankind) does not mean solely the male gender of the people referred to by biologists as -sapiens, but is in reference to all of what is often called humanity, regardless of whether the people included are male or female.
For those who are
still confused, consider that there is (or
was) a Walt Disney (the
manが
います), and a WALT DISNEY (the PERSON/CORPORATIONが
あります). They are
not the same entity... they both have a name that
looks the same,
sounds the same, and are
seemingly identical in spelling, but they are
completely different from one another.
Other words to watch out for :
Public Trust (you mean like a Cestui Que Trust ?)
Security (when they say that they are protecting your «security» do you think it's for
your «safety» ?)
Whilst it may
seem like there must have been some sort of gigantic, elaborate, complicated «conspiracy» for all of this deception to be brought about, I assure you that it is
not a conspiracy that any group of people decided to concoct, but, because all Legislators(Scribes)/Regulators(Pharisees)/etc., are essentially just «pawns» being used by
The Dark Sovereign Power as described by
the writings of the very Messiah himself.
Comments
The spelling of one's name is a lot like spell-casting~
Signing one's name in cursive hand-writing is a lot like placing one's name under a curse~
Paying the $$$ amount of a jail/bail/prison-bond is a lot like paying hommage to Baal~
There's a literal voting option : «Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, Because More Than Two Lines Long, I Didn't Read Any of It at All ! =D»
It's a weird kind of bored though isn't it? I mean, all that effort, for a tepid mild gag.
Some people are into that-
You'd have to be Swedish, I think, to have a parent named Per.