The legalese conundrum. Origins and usage of the term “person”.

The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.

Part 1

In 1817 Thomas Jefferson lamented that in drafting statutes his fellow lawyers were accustomed to “making every other word a ‘said’ or ‘aforesaid,’ and saying everything over two or three times, so that nobody but we of the craft can untwist the diction, and find out what it means…” – Plain English for Lawyers

The vernacular vulgar language that we all are raised into enslaves us, for by default we attribute it’s common meanings to the “wordy, unclear, pompous, and dull” legal writings that composes the law we are obligated to know and follow. Through the spells of the legal language the masses are dazed and content by it’s twisted diction. It’s sole purpose being to control the mind (govern-ment), binding us to the adversary of free grace (3rd entry). Legalese is made up with the same common words with different meanings carefully designed to be a burden for the layman to decipher. Due to the growing distress of this conundrum, statutes were passed that require “consumer contracts” to be written in a clear and cogent manner using words with common and everyday meanings. This is a deception that binds people closer to the system by simplifying the words just enough for him to know what is expected and leaving it to the individual to do his own due diligence to discover all the laws, codes, regulations and loopholes that also applies.. The average parent wants their child to be part of society (consent to the taking of the baby’s Natural borne Rights by using the government’s created person citizenship status and attaching the baby to it as surety through the filing of the birth certificate into the legal system), but those who are religious might be disheartened when considering that ‘in-sin-u-are‘ is a legal term for filing anything into the legal system (the birth certificate alienates one’s God given Rights for artificial political rights and places man’s law above God’s Law. That is idolatry.)… Aside, in modern law dictionaries a person is defined as “a living human being”, and under the term they’ll sometimes leave out that a person is also a corporation; a lame attempt for the layman to grasp and to keep the true meaning occulted. It is difficult to understand, but a person is not a man, but it is of man and belongs to man (hu-man).

human – Of the form and characteristics of man. – Ballentine’s Legal Dictionary 3rd Edition

human – 3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.) – Oxford New English Dictionary 1901

person – A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being ‘considered as’ having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. – Black’s Law 4th

Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis: Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. – Black’s Law 2nd

Everybody uses the word “person” to refer to a man, woman, or child. They’ll even say it in a way that suggests a person is a real, living, breathing and reasonable man that deserves natural equity. A deeper look into the the formation, etymology, and how the word has been applied reveals the true meaning. Person contains two syllables, per and son. In this case per is a prefix meaning through. The second syllable “son” is partitioned from Latin ‘sona‘ meaning sound, and when referring to a natural or artificial person the etymological source is ‘sunu/sone‘ which is a descendant, but more specifically an individual or thing born or produced in relation to the country*. The term person/a, as in through sound, relates more with the original meaning of the word. Originally, a persona was a mask that represented a character which was worn and acted on by an individual. The actor becomes the character from the sounds of his imitating voice through the mask. Then the law “metaphorically” adapted the term to determine legal entities that are used by individual/s under the government’s dominion. Person with the second syllable being of ‘sunu/sone’ means through the product/creation of government. In this sense, person only refers to the conditioned status of a human, corporation, organization, partnership, association, or other entity deemed or construed by law to be subject to the law. This creation of government (the law metaphorically speaks man into the existence of their world (entry 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20) is rooted from the dictation of the ancient law which clothes man with artificial attributes and allows man’s law to affect him. A person is always under the dominion of man’s rule. He is always a subject to the sovereign who reigns over it’s artificial jurisdiction.

national – n. 1. A member of a nation. 2. A person owing permanent allegiance to and under the protection of a state.
national of the United States – A citizen of the United States or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. Also termed u.s. national; U.S. citizen.

subject – n. 1. One who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign’s laws. “… it is to be noticed that the term subject is capable of a different and wider application, in which it includes all members of the body politic, whether they are citizens (i.e., subjects stricto sensu) or resident aliens. All such persons are subjects, all being subject to the power of the state and to its jurisdiction, and as owing to it, at least temporarily, fidelity and obedience.” – Black’s Law 9th

We are the king’s subjects (noun, 1st entry). Today the king is the government, his force is the executive branch, and the subjects are it’s citizens. Through their twisted diction the law sees us as subjects just like in the old days of kings, princes, commoners and slaves. Black’s Law claims that the difference between a “citizen” and a “subject” is whether rights and privileges, or it’s “correlative” obligations, are “prominent” within the status. As stated in Part 1, it is your right to be subject to pains, punishments and exactions of every kind. International law considers every person a subject to it’s nation. “Nationals” are no different. American Law and Procedure Vol. 12 states that America changed the legal noun “subjects” to “nationals” because Americans thought the former was distasteful. Citizen, national, subject; different terms with ultimately the same meaning. Sadly, the Babylonian-name-change tactic is one that rarely ever fails against the vulgar masses.

“When the lack of political submission began to be perceived as making all the difference in one’s legal status, a crucial move was made to set up the stage where people of all sorts, kinds, sexes and status could start a long fight to obtain an equal package of legal treatments with no other ammunition than their political submission.” – Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship

It is required for citizens/subjects to be under complete obedience, fidelity, and submission to the law, otherwise the legitimacy of it’s simulated authority would be diminished. To protect this legitimacy the law punishes those who lack political submission and praises the civil (3rd entry); making life hell for men who wish not to alienate their Natural borne Rights. Jean Bodin, 16th century French jurist and political philosopher, reflects on this notion while elaborating the genesis of the State, “he who did not want to give up some of this liberty, which is necessary to live under the laws and commands of someone else, lost all of his liberty.” The dilemma of statuses inherently being inequitable, affected by one’s obedience, caused people to love their servitude to receive legal equity. But even with the utmost obedience to the sovereign, without being under certain conditions, one still did not have the same rights as others. In Old England, some people claimed high social class or royal heritage to gain the artificial benefits of certain conditioned statuses. Not much has changed when today we have people, using the same concept, falsely claiming their person being under certain conditions in order to obtain benefits*. The status of US Congress has the right and privilege to not be ‘arrested’ for any crime while in Session *.

The citizen’s parent is the government. The term ‘parent’ came from the term ‘parere’, to give birth, and in latin ‘parens’, which means parent. A common synonym of ‘giving birth’ is ‘to create’ which brings us to the legal maxim “the creator controls”. Everything controlled by government is under a status created by law. Your government created the legal entity status (person) it assigned to you, and they can govern that creation in any way they please (anything goes under ‘necessity‘). The government also plays the role of guardian/parent to what it created (parens patriae). In America law the state has guardianship over persons under disability (who cannot properly use government property) such as minors, insane and incompetent persons. If you’ve read Part 1, you’ll already know that the US government considers all persons insane except for a brief period when they sign a contract. Every person’s father is the state; not the biological or step father, nor God, but government.

The conspiracy in this is that we are raised into profane vulgarism, unaware of the full extent of the king’s language (legalese) that governs us while being taught the dog-latin slave language; wanting to be “smart”, being proud of our “freedoms”, appearing “civil”, wanting to be a good “person” and being treated like a “human being”. All of these terms are words of the enslaved. Smart is suffering pains, freedom is the right to follow the law, civil is being a good gentile goyim, a person is an artificial corporation, and a human is that which belongs to man. This matrix system of control, which humanity’s livelihood depends on, makes mankind love his servitude to the secular gods who are only here to administrate the spiritually dead who cannot govern themselves without causing chaos.

Dog-Latin – The Latin of illiterate persons; Latin words put together on the English grammatical system. – Blacks Law 4th

Judicial proceedings = A stage play. A “person” is an artificial construct created by government.

The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.

According to Carl Jung, and Fowler’s Modern English Dictionary, a legal person is:

“‘The individual’s system of adaptation to, or the manner he assumes in dealing with, the world [the legal world, world of nations, man’s law]…
One could say, with a little exaggeration, that the persona [legal person] is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is’. It would seem therefore, so far as the ordinary man can understand these things, that a persona is much the same as an image.” – The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by C G. Jung, Oxford Fowler’s Modern English Usage Dictionary 1985

Every person in the legal matrix carries artificially bestowed obligations such as knowing and following the laws and codes that are influenced by the roman pagan law, paying taxes to the sovereign, contracting their time, mental and physical energy to be used (employed) in order to obtain ‘legal tender’ to participate in commerce so they can ‘legally’ pursue (right to peruse happiness) basic life amenities without restraint. Those kinds of obligations are not real, self-existent, or necessary to live peacefully in this world. They derive from the artificial construct of government, The Beast System.

Humanity’s state has been of artifice in that the system we live under, follow and consider daily is a clever deception. We’re raised to put on pretend-masks to be recognized and governed by an artificial system of man-made laws that molds us into indentured personhood servitude. This system supports and protects actions of wrong doing through made-up concepts like legalizing and licensing, allowing mercenaries (soldiers) to kill, historical and modern slavery, restricting your natural right to travel freely or obtain food from nature by hunting or farming, etc. This can only be possible when we “voluntarily surrendered” our Natural borne Rights and equip the legal persona to play in their theater of life.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted [referring to Natural borne Rights] only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” – City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Overall the term “person” appoints any being capable of having rights (humans, corporations, municipalities, institutions, communities, etc); furthermore they are distinguished between artificial persons and natural persons. According to the American Law and Procedure book the true meaning of the term in jurisprudence, when referring to a human, is understood when investigating how it was used in the Roman and English law. Although this book was published in 1910, the inquiries are still valid in describing what a person is today.

This “person” is an artificial construct created by government. The law can be compared to a tabletop role-playing game which is a man-made concept that has players act out it’s characters. Both create characters that are taken by volunteers and governed by it’s rules. By obedience to the rules the players breath life into it, thus the game is in play. Or one can think of the governance system like an adult version of playing pretend (the “fine arts” of theatre) when their own writings metaphorically appoint the term person to “each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage”, and in doing so the man “resembles a player in a comedy or drama.” It’s all a show.

“… the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage… In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time. In this respect he resembles the player in a comedy or drama.”

The author deciphers the inquiries from legal philosophers and professors and applies them to the American law, and apparently all other nations appointing status to people under their jurisdiction.

“The word ‘person’ does not in the language of law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man… In fact, law, by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature.

“… man and person cannot be synonymous for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons… the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality, which we [the law] see and by which we are affected… While the idea may be difficult for the tyro to grasp, the personality, i. e., this condition or status of man, is entirely the creation of law.

“This word person and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [in appearance only] 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 (carried) by physical persons…. THE LAW OF PERSONS IS THE LAW OF STATUS OR CONDITION.” – American Law and Procedure: Constitutional Law Vol.13

These definitions clearly state what a person is from the American law standpoint. Note that Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was adapted to the Constitution of the United States.

“person – 1. the exhibition or representation of a character in dialogue, fiction, or on the stage.
2. The part or character which any one sustains, either by office or in the ordinary relations of human life.” – Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language 1865

“person – 1. This word is applied to men, women, and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and persons are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether may be a member of society or not, whatever the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place be holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.
3. But when the word “persons” is spoken in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to the artificial persons.” –Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856

By their definition of legal terms we are considered “actors” or “agents” of the “per-son” we identify as which is a creation and property of government. In law books they metaphorically describe juridical proceedings as a “comedy or drama.” We are considered the vulgar masses, vulgar meaning the common illiterate people because we don’t understand the law and we ‘need’ an attorney to re-present us, to act as our person. Unless you can prove in court that you are well versed in the legal language and proceedings you are viewed, by default, as an insane lunatic. Demeaning, but understandable when pondering… The law sees the average person as not being fully familiar with the laws and procedures, and when he is in court he “might”, “by taking reasonable pains”, ‘have acquired the necessary knowledge of the law’; thus, he is voluntarily ignorant. When he communicates the common vulgar language in court, the magistrate hears a “mentally deranged” individual speaking words “that have no foundation in reason or reality [in law]”. The law only comprehends it’s terms of art. That is why legal professionals suggest having an attorney re-present you.

Legal Maxim: “Lunaticus, qui gaudet in lucidis intervallis. A person is (still) a lunatic who enjoys lucid intervals.

LUNATIC. An insane person. See INSANE.

INSANE. Mentally deranged; suffering from one or more delusions or false beliefs that (1) have no foundation in reason or reality, (2) are not credible to any reasonable person of sound mind, and (3) cannot be overcome in a sufferer’s mind by any amount of evidence or argument.

LUCID INTERVAL. 1. A brief period during which an insane person regains sanity sufficient to have the legal capacity to contract and act on his or her own behalf.” – Black’s Law 8th

It surely is extremely foolish (insane) to voluntarily alienate your Natural borne Rights to take on artificial ones like exactions, pains, and punishments in order to use the government’s natural person status to participate in their enter-tain-ment (to enter and hold the mind) govern-ment (to control the mind) production live action role-play. One must be mentally ill (a lunatic) to assume that participation in this Beast System is a natural part of life.

Part 2