Yes
Printable View
Maybe it's an inverse cartesian thing: The original poster doesn't think so he isn't.
Rene Descartes walks into a bar and the bartender asks if he wants a drink. Descartes says "I think not" and vanishes.
People refers to a group of human beings, see for example Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th Ed, “human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.” A person is defined as by that same dictionary as “Human, individual.” So, he is a human and a person. But you are saying that he thinks he is also a people, i.e. more than one individual? That would be quite odd indeed.
It is true that under the law corporations and other legal entities are for many purposes treated like persons. They are given many of the same rights and responsibilities as humans. But the flaw in argument that the sovereign individual crowd makes is in believing that because corporations and other legal entities are treated like a person that this somehow means that humans are excluded from the definition of a person and thus not subject to the laws of the nation or state. Nothing about treating a corporation like a person logically infers that humans are not persons. That bad logic leads to a fatally flawed argument that they lose every time they try it in court. If you want to be laughed out of court, feel free to make that argument. It won’t help you at all, but it will succeed in making you look like a fool to the judge.
I would recommend using a legal dictionary when defining legal words and phrases that aren't specifically defined in the context of your argument. As in, if you are arguing statute don't use Websters general definitions use the statutes. If you are arguing the legal difference of Persons and Peoples - don't use Websters general definitions.
Go right ahead and share the definition you're looking at.
I don't think you want to, if you somehow accomplished this, you would no longer be protected by laws that protect people so anyone could rape, murder, or rob you and nothing could be done.
but there is not any mechanism to do this, so don't worry about it.
Perhaps I'm making a grammatical mistake saying a people. It is better said one of the people. Yes people are in general recognized as a group. However they are not individually recognized from that group as persons.
Persons are either natural or jurisdictional -Quote:
What is PEOPLE?
A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. Nesbitt v. Lushington, 4 Term R. 783; U. S. v. Quincy, 0 Pet. 407, 8 L. Ed. 458; U. S. v. Trumbull (D. C.) 48 Fed. 99. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used In constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors. See Keller v. Hill, 00 Iowa, 543, 15 N. W. 009; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404, 15 L. Ed. 091; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sun. Ct. 375, 30 L. Ed. 103; Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 502, 11 S. W. 513; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 20 Pac. 012; Blair v. RIdgely, 41 Mo. 03, 97 Am. Dec. 248; Beverly v. Sabin, 20 111. 357; In re Incurring of State Debts, 19 R. I. 010, 37 Atl. 14. The word “people” may have various significations according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction as to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that selected and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) p. 30.
The above references are from Blacks LawQuote:
What is JURIDICAL PERSON?
Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. Also refer to body corporate.
From American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
Quote:
"This word `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."
Are you aware that Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, was published in 1910? When you are going to criticize others for not using a law dictionary, you need to do more than a bit better than that. Also, Taxing Matters is well aware of fictitious / juridical persons -- he even explained that to you -- but their existence does not change the meaning of the word "person" or "people".
Your heavily redacted quote of a passage from an 1910 volume of American Law & Procedure doesn't change any of that. Even with the extensive omissions, the passage is clearly directed at a specific context. The ellipses suggest that the passage has been deliberately distorted, perhaps even misrepresented, to advance an agenda. (And seriously... you don't want people to use dictionaries, but your reference book of choice is Social Security: Mark of the Beast?")
Do you have anything from, say, the most recent century that we should look at?