Clarity please

[David Merrill]

Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.

This might be the first formal person of any consequence today - I speak about my perpetual inheritance in the Patroons...

[LearnTheLaw]

Well, it turns out that I gave myself a tall order. I cannot find any precise definition of what a person is, although there are several precise definitions of different kinds of persons. There are moral persons, physical persons, and juridic persons recognized in the Church, which also recognizes more kinds of persons subsisting outside of the Church. In other words, there appears to be an army of persons (according to the RCC) at work in the world and in heaven., but nowhere can I find what a person is.

However, there are many dissertations on what man and mankind are. I discovered there are four Constitutions of Church government, each purporting to define the role of the Church in the world, one of them being: DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.

After reading this Constitution and the others, and after reading what I thought were the applicable codes in canon law, I have no choice but to infer that a person is that part of a being that relates to society, and may include groups of people and entities recognizable as one person.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking. On reading these documents (which is not my first time severally, but is my first time in reading them all concurrently) I was struck by the apparent harmony in their reasoning. Whatever people may think of the RCC, it must be acknowledged she is thorough and broad in her explanations of her mission. That being said, she leaves much for individuals in their own consciences to contemplate, leaving them free to accept or reject the Church's conclusions.

Personhood is a metaphysical question. In reading these Constitutions, I did come to a deeper understanding in my own mind about what personhood is. I apprehend better that: a person is a being's expression of self among a community. Self can include groups, or bodies as the Church calls them. The highest example of personhood is the RCC model of the Holy Trinity. One being - God - exists in three persons. These persons are the One's expression of self in the society of humanity. People like to say God is revealed in his persons, which is true.

It appears there is an over-arching system of metaphysical understanding that guides the RCC in her ministrations. It also appears that this understanding pervades other systems of law outside of the Church. While some people might find it offensive to be regarded in society as merely a person, it remains a metaphysical truth that one's being is unreachable to others. Society (other beings, individually or in groups) has no other choice but to see a being's person. So too, one being cannot reach other beings, except through their persons.

I suppose that - as this relates to demanding lawful money - an individual person's rank in society is the real thing at stake. David's comment that all persons are subject to higher powers is interesting in that, it acknowledges personhood as a creature of society, not of an individual being. The question is, is that personhood really subject to society?

If a person is a being's expression of self in society, and society's recognition of it in return, by what authority does society seek to impose its collective will on an individual being? All it can do is assert the collective will against the individual person. Money - in its broadest sense, a medium of exchange - courses through society, carrying with it obligations and benefits to persons. These obligations and benefits are sometimes ill defined, yet they exist ostensibly for the overall good of a society.

Demanding and receiving lawful money ought to be regarded as a person's attempt to assert one's human dignity in society. Moreover, it is not an advancement on or against society, but rather a firm expression of an individual being's existence as part of the divine order. The private credit regime seeks to depart from the divine order, by assuming the One's role as Creator - the regime did create the credit - and imposing private obligations on the holders of its credit. To enter into the private credit regime is to leave behind the One, and submit to the private credit society's collective will.

Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

[shikamaru]

Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.

If you want to study persons, you should start with Roman Civil Law.

Jural Relations: or, The Roman Law of Persons as subjects of Jural Relations
NOtes on Roman Law: Law of Persons, Law of Contracts

A person is a capacity for rights and duties in relation to a society.

There is also status or estates.

[Keith Alan]

If you want to study persons, you should start with Roman Civil Law.

Jural Relations: or, The Roman Law of Persons as subjects of Jural Relations
NOtes on Roman Law: Law of Persons, Law of Contracts

A person is a capacity for rights and duties in relation to a society.

There is also status or estates.

Great sources! Thank you very much! They ought to keep me busiy for a while.

[Keith Alan]

Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

Thank you. I now have quite a lot on my plate.

[BAMAJiPS]

Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

Excellent point. I have just been turned on to the fact that there IS no income tax requirement. NONE. I am studying law as fast as humanly possible so IF the occasion ever arises, I can properly defend myself in court. I can't believe the mass deception of our government! It truly is sickening. Breaking the conditioning is getting easier by the day. Is there any chance to revoke or cancel my subscription to my Socialist Security number?

[shikamaru]

Excellent point. I have just been turned on to the fact that there IS no income tax requirement. NONE. I am studying law as fast as humanly possible so IF the occasion ever arises, I can properly defend myself in court. I can't believe the mass deception of our government! It truly is sickening. Breaking the conditioning is getting easier by the day. Is there any chance to revoke or cancel my subscription to my Socialist Security number?

Studying law is a marathon run and not a sprint .

You'll be studying for the rest of your life.

I'll opine that it is best to avoid court and avoid controversy, but don't sleep on your rights .
It is best to slowly back out of the system giving time to adjust to the changes, in my opinion.
Eventually, you will be all out. It all depends on the actions you take along with their resulting footprints within various systems.

[BAMAJiPS]

Studying law is a marathon run and not a sprint .

You'll be studying for the rest of your life.

For me understanding the law is becoming easier and easier, as if I don't grasp something, I just look it up. Civil procedure, rules and forming concise legal documents is proving to be a little more difficult. I am trying to file a motion for continuance (which would be due tomorrow morning) and actually applying what I know in court approved format is proving a little more challenging. The format issue has me boggled a bit and I am not sure of all the rules of procedure involved (like do I HAVE to send a copy to opposing counsel, etc). Trying to find templates to copy has proven to be difficult as there are several different ways to skin the cat as far as I can tell. I swore an oath to the clerk of the courts Friday and signed up to be in the online file system (which has automatic templates) but the bureaucracy is slow and I am not "in" the system yet, which would presumably eliminate all my guesswork for said action.

I am attempting to stave off the iron teeth of the government beast long enough to be able to assert my rights. Since I owe a veritable fortune to the "system" and have been denied due process once already by being hurled into the joint, I am planning a preemptive assault coming weeks/months. I plan on demanding my unalienable rights be respected before I am deprived of life and liberty next time... telling the system that they must adhere to the US Constitution and specifically these gems in the Alabama Constitution which says "no person shall be held in prison for a debt", "That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate", "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression"...

The sad fact is that I am already entangled with the court system and the beast. I'm trying as tactfully and skillfully to back out of what I think to be a near impossible situation. I have been walked over several times in the past due to ignorance. I do have concerns that if/when I try to buck the system and assert my rights the court is going to come back with a vengeance... thus me saying I am trying to absorb as much as I can as quickly as I can.

It doesn't matter what I study - here it was lawful money - it all leads in a circular loop that reinforces itself. From land patents, to contract law, to the fraud of the IRS and income taxes to tyrannical courts operating outside subject matter jurisdictions, corporate American jurisdictions and back to money. Its amazing that there is basically a whole other universe of "facts" that, all put together like a puzzle, fit far better than the "facts" as presented by school, media, etc.

[David Merrill]

I plan on demanding my unalienable rights be respected before I am deprived of life and liberty next time...

I strongly suggest that you find the oaths of office (or get certificates of fact in their absence) and study up on the Bills of Rights. If the actors have sworn properly (in proper form) to uphold your rights then so be it.

[BAMAJiPS]

I strongly suggest that you find the oaths of office (or get certificates of fact in their absence) and study up on the Bills of Rights. If the actors have sworn properly (in proper form) to uphold your rights then so be it.

Oh my! It just made sense!

http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/mc14.pdf They actually sign this and I can use it to "remind" them and bind them to it, yes!?!?! Thank you David!

I have so many things going on simultaneously, I think it prudent to form a strategy and make a plan of action. I need to peel back the layers starting with the easier going to the harder.

-Continue to redeem lawful money.
-Keep the beast at bay on the child support issue until I am better versed in the law and can find remedy/recourse. (Circuit court)
-Get my suspended license back (My main source of income is in commercial driving) :/
-aaaaand the one I think I am going to try first - I want to try to get a void/nullified judgement on my total BS DUI due to no standing, no subject matter jurisdiction, no injured party, no corpus delecti, etc. (Municipal court)

I am told that jurisdiction can be challenged at ANY time. I have reservations because I took a plea deal and plead guilty (thanks attorney for wasting my time and money), but that shouldnt matter that I voiluntarily placed myself under the court's jurisdiction should it? Thats irrelevant that the court failed to gain subject matter jurisdiction correct?

I am anxious to start putting some of what I've learned to practice - take the plunge so to speak. I am also eager to start sharing documents, as I dont want to leech any more. I want to contribute experiences. Kind of scary, but kind of exhilarating.