The Romans 13 ordeal

“Christians” love to point to Romans 13 as a reason to participate and gain from Satan’s world [man’s legal world, worldly nations] through membership. Christ denied it [Mat 4:1-11], and as followers of Him we should to. In those Matthew verses Satan offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” and in this sense “glory” means “their resources, wealth, the magnificence and greatness of their cities, their fertile lands, their thronging population.” He did not offer God’s nature, but creations of man that operate in opposition to God’s law because that is Satan’s dominion. The Old English language recognized this with the term “baly” which meant “evil; sorrow” and also “dominion; government.”

“BALY.
(1) Evil; sorrow.
(4) Dominion; government.” — A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words: Obsolete Phrases, Proverbs, and Ancient Customs, from the XIV Century, 1904

The most simple way to discount this notion of being part of Satan’s world is to contemplate on the words that are being used in Romans 13 and similar verses [Tit 3:1, 1 Pe 2:13]. “To be subject to/unto” is not the same as “to be a subject of.” We are to respect the ordinances of these gentile nations [not over and above God’s law], for their artificial existence is the will of God, but they do not force membership. We are to be subject to, not voluntary subjects of. Romans 13:9 recalls one of the ten commandments to not commit adultery. This adultery is to “have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.” This commandment is not only the physical sexual intercourse with another man’s wife but legal intercourse with a gentile nation. “Intercourse” in legalese means, “Dealings or communications, especially between businesses, governmental entities, or the like.” It is okay for a true follower of Christ to communicate with governmental entities, but it is unlawful [to God] to communicate or deal for the outcome of becoming a member, participating in, and gaining from it. Also consider that gentile nations in The Bible are referred to as feminine terms like “her” [Jer 51:45, Rev 18:4], and you can see these nations as being wives of Satan. We are to have a spiritual intercourse with God/Christ [Isa 54:5, 2Co 11:2], not a spiritually dead legal intercourse with Satan/nations.

“intercourse. 1. Dealings or communications, esp. between businesses, governmental entities, or the like.” — Black’s Law 9th

We are to be followers of Christ who was not ‘a subject of’ any nation. He was not of this world [Jhn 18:36], but He and His disciples were subject to them. Jesus communicated with Pontuis Pilate when the pharisees demanded him to use his political power to commit capitol punishment against Jesus, but when Jesus spoke the Truth unto Pilate he responded to the jews, “I find in him no fault at all.” This is because Jesus never voluntarily registered and did not break any of Rome’s laws. Jesus respected man’s dominion, never trespassed, and never rebelled against the legal authorities.

Tit 3:1, 1 Pe 2:13-20 say the same as Romans 13 but are written a little differently. Take notice that in 1 Pe 2:15-16 it says that we “may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” The term “free” here means to have no obligations like the civil obligations that citizens carry to their gentile nation. We are not to have membership of that world, for doing so is not only serving mammon [Mat 6:24], but having obligations of putting man’s law above God’s. We are not to use this liberty to break their laws.

“obligation. 2. A formal, binding agreement or acknowledgment of a liability to pay a certain amount [taxes] or to do a certain thing for a particular person or set of persons [municipalities, governmental agencies]; esp., a duty arising by contract. Also termed (in sense 2) civil obligation.” Black’s Law 9th

gentile,
adjective:
3. In gram., expressing nationality, local extraction, or place of abode; describing or designating a person as belonging to a certain race, country, district, town, or locality by birth or otherwise: as, a gentile noun (as Greek, Arab, Englishman, etc.); a gentile adjective (as Florentine, Spanish, etc.).
noun:
4. In gram. a noun or adjective derived from the name of a country or locality, and designating its natives or people: as the words Italian, American, Athenian, are gentiles.” — 1889 Century Dictionary

Verses like Romans 13 is more of a warning telling you to not rebel against the powers that be, for there will be suffering. These powers are ordained by God to govern sinners [1 Tim 1:8-10] because of the free will of people wanting to break God’s laws and be ruled by man, and The Bible clearly warns of this [1 Sam 8:10-22]. “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” God will not hear you in your gentile membership, for you have broken the first commandment [Exo 20:3, Deu 5:7] of putting gods before Him. The term used for “gods” in the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” is ‘ĕlōhîm which in this sense refers to both pagan supernatural gods and rulers/judges. We are to respect the ordinances of these gentile nations, for their artificial existence is the will of God, but they do not force membership. We are to be subject to, not voluntary subjects of, the gentile nations, but not be yoked (joined) with them [2 Co 6:14].

“10. Law is for Lawbreakers: “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:8-10).” — University Of Wisconsin-Madison, Legal Studies Program, Sources Of Law 1: The Bible [Quoting from NIV]

“What the Seal of the United States of America represents, to anyone who takes it seriously, is a Ministry of Sin. A speech by Jesuit political scientist Michael Novak, published in the January 28, 1989 issue of America, the weekly magazine of American Jesuits, sums it up eloquently enough:
The framers wanted to build a “novus ordo” that would secure “liberty and justice for all”…. The underlying principle of this new order is the fact of human sin. To build a republic designed for sinners, then, is the indispensable task…. There is no use building a social system for saints. There are too few of them. And those there are are impossible to live with!… Any effective social system must therefore be designed for the only moral majority there is: sinners.‘” Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies

Because man’s law recognizes Natural Law as the foundational Law they cannot force membership in it. One must volunteer to be part of it. Legal maxim: “Equity will not support a volunteer.” There is no real fairness in Satan’s world; you can find all kinds of ridiculous laws and court cases where the judge’s ruling is completely unfair. Man’s law expects from you complete adherence to it, over and above God’s law. It is even in your name. Your surname [last name, aka nickname] is legally considered over and above your first name [given name, Christian name], and it is a mark [a trade-mark of commerce] signifying that you are a member in Satan’s world.

No one wants to hear this, but we are not to be part of this world despite all the luxuries it offers. Christ, His apostles, and the early followers were persecuted for it, so expect the same to you if you were to truly follow Him.

The patriot denounces Christ and loves his enrollment in Satan’s world. Joseph and Mary were not registered.

“American Patriotic Skull” metaphorically showing the spiritual and secular condition of patriots

Many people proudly claim to be patriots of their country, believing in it’s founding principles and supporting it’s welfare. They will be disheartened if they find out the real meaning behind being a patriot. Part of being a patriot is supporting the country’s current interest, but many patriots do not and want to bring it back to a time when they think it was better. They have love for their nation despite the fact that their relationship to it is serfdom and debtorship. Humorously, in America many patriotic republicans have been swayed by the political rhetoric of Donald Trump believing he’s some kind of patriotic savior, and they still have hope in him becoming president again. I suppose they are unaware that Trump is not a zealous supporter of the US Constitution. The fact is that looking up to men to govern your affairs will always lead to inevitable destruction. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”, Psalm 146:3

Patriots are under the delusion that the country is theirs and that it’s purpose is the citizen’s welfare. That is far from the truth as history has certainly proven. In the Constitution it starts out “We the People” with “People” being capitalized as a capitonym with a different meaning which does not refer to public citizens, but the ‘inhabitants’ of the States in their sovereign capacity. A US citizen is not an inhabitant of the State in which he ‘resides’. His inhabitance, or ‘domicile’, is the United States Corporation in the District of Columbia. He has residency in the state, but not domicile. The legal scribes intentionally make their legalese difficult to comprehend to the layman; as Thomas Jefferson said 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…” For a better explanation on how we are not the “People” I’ll direct you to an article that explains it well enough.

PEOPLE. Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power… The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others [i.e. “We the People”] to the state in its sovereign capacity…”

INHABITANT. Implies a more fixed and permanent abode than “resident;” frequently imports many privileges and duties to which a mere resident could not lay claim or be subject.’
One domiciled: one who has his domicile or fixed residence in a place, in opposition to a mere “sojourner.” – A Dictionary Of Law by W.C. Anderson 1889

The definition of patriot is one “who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” The word derives from Greek patrios which means “of one’s father”, patris “fatherland”, and pater which is “father” To be a patriot is to claim your father is the worldly government that is your nation, not God. Even if you are not a patriot you are still a citizen which means you have voluntarily alienated adherence to a former foreign sovereign and are standing under your current secular sovereign that is your nation. If you were born in said country, at first your ‘father’ is God/Christ [a foreign sovereign to the nation, the Prince Of Peace] until the legal insinuation of your government issued (G.I.) person which in most cases is shortly after birth. The naturalization oath of citizenship clearly states that you “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince [Christ, the Prince Of Peace], potentate, state, or sovereignty

When breaking the word down [pat-riot], the government has always viewed patriots as terrorists even before the notion of the law labeling it’s citizens as possible ‘enemies of the state’. A ‘pat’ is one who adheres “to an existing/former status or policy and refusing to consider proposals of change or reform.” And ‘riot’ is an ‘assembly that is seen by the law as a breach of peace, a terror to the public, and to execute and unlawful purpose.’ That is how the law defines those words. The word patriot is also “used for a factious disturber of the government.” In this sense, the government sees patriots who refuse to consider proposals of change or reform as a threat to its future endeavors.

patriot (n.)
1590s, “compatriot,” from French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Liddell & Scott write that patriotes was “applied to barbarians who had only a common [patris], [politai] being used of Greeks who had a common [polis] (or free-state).”

Meaning “loyal and disinterested lover and defender of one’s country and its interests” is attested from c. 1600, but it became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as “one whose ruling passion is the love of his country,” in his fourth edition added, “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”

The name of patriot had become [c. 1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that … the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot. [Macaulay, “Horace Walpole,” 1833]

It was somewhat revived in reference to resistance movements in overrun countries in World War II, and it has usually had a positive sense in American English, where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928).” – https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=patriot

pat –  In politics, to adhere obstinately to an existing status or policy, refusing to consider proposals of change or reform; stand still, in a blind or stubborn refusal to disturb existing conditions when they are profitable to one’s party or one’s self.” – 1889 Century Dictionary

riot – Specifically In law, an unlawful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it assembled by a breach of the peace, and to the terror of the public, or a lawful assembly proceeding to execute an unlawful purpose…” – 1889 Century Dictionary

PAT’RIOTnoun [Latin patria, one’s native country, form pater, father.]
A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” – Webster’s Dictionary 1828

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” – Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

“and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” – KJV, Isa 9:6

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world” – KJV, Jhn 18:36

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” – KJV, Jas 4:4

If you are not a “Christian” you already denounce Christ, but those who claim to be a ‘follower’ and also a ‘patriot’ have turned away His sovereignty. Being a Christian is following the example of Christ Jesus, but Jesus was not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments, Satan’s world], and being part of it and actively participating in it is in fact renouncing Christ. Even His parents were not of this world, but they were subject to it [being subject to =/= being a subject of].

Christ Jesus, his Kingdom is not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments], therefore his dominion is not of the United States nor any nation or state. He never registered to become a member under any nation. We are not to have membership of the world, for friendship of it is enmity with God, and this friendship is done by voluntarily enrolling/registering into it. Joseph sought to not make a public example of Mary; they wanted to stay private in the heavenly register. Some people will point to Luke 2:1-5 that mentions the decree by Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed [registered into the census] and that Joseph was taxed with Mary. In Luke 2:2 “this taxing” was so “that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one” In order to tax someone they would need to be registered into the public [census]. In the original Greek translation the word for “tax” in the KJV means to register [voluntary enrollment], and it is understood as that this enrollment was in the heavenly register for Joseph and Mary. The public register of a nation is clearly not the heavenly register. It is more likely that Joseph with Mary claimed privacy on record that he was of the lineage of King David and had no intentions to participate in the public business world. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon makes the claim that in Luke 2:3 “all” went to enroll in the heavenly register, when it is biblically clear that did not happen. Joseph and Mary enrolled in the heavenly register, pronounced their complete adherence to God through the lineage of David. Then when Mary brought forth Jesus she “laid him in a manger; for there was no room for them in the inn”, and back then the inns were for those who were publicly registered and could be accounted for. A ‘manger’ is in a barn; “a trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle”, and “one conceived in a barn” is considered a ‘bastard’. In order for a child to not be a bastard he “must at least be born after the lawful marriage.” A lawful marriage is of two publicly registered persons in which the courts ordain a marriage license.

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.” – KJV, Mat 1:19

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: )
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” – KJV, Luke 2:1-7

“STRONGS NT 583: ἀπογράφω [tax]
a. to write off, copy (from some pattern).
b. to enter in a register or records; specifically, to enter in the public records the names of men, their property and income, to enroll (cf. ἀπογραφή, b.); middle to have oneself registered, to enroll oneself [Winer’s Grammar, § 38, 3]: Luke 2:1, 3, 5; passive οἱ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένοι those whose names are inscribed in the heavenly register,”

“STRONGS NT 582: ἀπογραφή [taxing]
a. a writing off, transcript (from some pattern).
b. an enrolment (or registration) in the public records of persons together with their property and income, as the basis of an ἀποτίμησις (census or valuation), i. e. that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one: Luke 2:2; Acts 5:37; on the occurrence spoken of in both passages, cf. Schürer, Ntl. Zeitgesch. § 17, pp. 251, 262-286, and books there mentioned; [McClellan 1:392-399; B. D. under the word Taxing].” – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

MANGERnoun
1. A trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle, or the place in which horses and cattle are fed.”

B’ASTARDnoun A natural child; a child begotten and born out of wedlock; an illegitimate or spurious child. By the civil and canon laws, a bastard becomes a legitimate child, by the intermarriage of the parents, at any future time. But by the laws of this country, as by those of England, a child, to be legitimate, must at least be born after the lawful marriage.” – Webster’s 1828

bastard, noun
Word origin ME < OFr < bast- (also in fils de bast) (< ? Goth bansts, barn) + -ard,-ard: hence, one conceived in a barn” – collinsdictionary.com

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”, Psalm 146:3. Protestant pastor David Guzik explains eloquently how leaders of this day are nothing to revere. I believe it’s not just the leaders of these days, but of all time. Either way he makes a good point here.

“Politicians of this day look for what they can get from you. Jesus looks for what He can do for you.

Leaders of this day surround themselves with servants. Jesus surrounds us with His servanthood.

Leaders of this day use their power to build their empire. Jesus uses his power to wash our feet and make us clean and comfortable.

Leaders of this day trade their influence for money. God so loved that he gave …

Generals of this day need regular wars to keep their weapons and skills up to date and insure their own advancement. Jesus brings peace and rest to hearts.

The higher the plane of importance one reaches in this world, the more inaccessible he becomes. Jesus was Emanuel, “God with us.”

Leaders of this day are desperate to be seen and heard. Jesus sought anonymity so He could be useful.

Obviously, Jesus is not in charge of the halls of Washington, London, Moscow, Baghdad, Paris or Bonn.” – David Guzik

The spiritual way of Christ involves not volunteering to be enrolled in the world of man [legal world, world of nations, Satan’s world], and Christ was obviously not of this world. If you are publicly registered it is your spiritual duty to abjure from it.

“Leave Babylon; flee from the Babylonians! Shout for joy as you tell it and announce it. Shout it out to the ends of the earth…” – GOD’S WORD Translation, Isa 48:20

Charles Thomson, the man who talked the truth, refused to release an insider definitive history on the American Revolution to protect the agendas of the Jesuit Vatican Empire

The man best qualified to become our country’s greatest historian, certainly the man with the most complete access to primary sources in the Revolutionary cause, was Charles Thomson. An authentic classical scholar, a discreet Protestant steeped in Medici learning, Thomson was known as “Perpetual Secretary of the Continental Congress.” He inscribed minutes of every Congressional session from 1774 until ratification of the Constitution in 1789. With William Barton, a Freemason, he designed the Great Seal of the United States of America: the choice of its Virgilian mottoes is credited exclusively to Thomson.

Among his contemporaries, Charles Thomson’s name was synonymous with Truth. So accurate were his minutes of Pennsylvania’s negotiations with the Delaware Indians that the Delawares called him Wegh-wu-law-mo-end, “the man who talks the truth.” When he would take his daily reports of congressional proceedings to the streets, eager mobs would cry “Here comes Charles Thomson! Here comes the Truth!”

Once the Constitution was ratified, Charles Thomson retired to Harriton, his country home in Bryn Mawr. He destroyed his personal papers relative to the creation of the new republic. An article by Kenneth Boling in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1976) says that Thomson actually wrote a lengthy history of the Revolution, which he also destroyed. Thomson biographer J. Edwin Hendricks of Wake Forest suggests a fate other than destruction, alluding to “persistent rumors that the Thomson papers are in the Pennsylvania Masonic records.” (Professor Hendricks assured me personally that numerous inquiries have failed to reflect Thomson’s membership in Pennsylvania Masonry.)
Whether Thomson destroyed his history or surrendered it to the crypt of secrecy, it is clear that he knew there were certain elements in the formation of American government that must, must be ignored. “If the truth were known,” he told friends darkly, “many careers would be tarnished and the leadership of the nation would be weakened.”

And so Charles Thomson occupied the remaining forty years of his life translating the Septuagint, the Greek-language Bible, into English. Still, he was frequently requested to write the definitive insider’s history of the Revolution. Dr. Benjamin Rush overheard Thomson’s reply to one such request and recorded it in his diary:

“No,” said he, “I ought not, for I should contradict all the histories of the great events of the Revolution, and shew by my account of men, motives and measures, that we are wholly indebted to the agency of Providence [Jesuit Vatican Empire] for its successful issue. Let the world admire the supposed wisdom and valor of our great men. Perhaps they may adopt the qualities that have been ascribed to them, and thus good may be done. I shall not undeceive future generations.”— Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies by F. Tupper Saussy, 1999

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

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 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