How to Get Rid of Your Status as a Person

how do I get rid of my person?

Since we no longer "own" persons, there is no mechanism for ridding yourself of "your person".

don't we hold claim to it, as we appear in person. Can you explain your first statement( did we own it at one point) and if we don't own it who does

It was a reference to slavery. I guess if you died you would be rid of your person.

What is it you REALLY want to do?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

What is it you REALLY want to do?

---

You know where this is probably headed, dontcha? :D

<--- knows where this is headed...

;)

Enlighten me on where you think this is headed. I am here to learn

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

don't we hold claim to it, as we appear in person. Can you explain your first statement( did we own it at one point) and if we don't own it who does

---

Honey, let Aunty Doggie give you some advice.

Quit mucking about online. Go browse the AOL forums like the rest of your friends.

You're very welcome!

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

Enlighten me on where you think this is headed. I am here to learn

---

Please enlighten us on why you feel the need to rid yourself of your person.

a link to the forum would be swell, Aunty doggie..

- - - Updated - - -

Because I am not my person. So why would I want to have it represent me

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

Because I am not my person. So why would I want to have it represent me

---

That makes precisely zero sense. What do you mean when you say "my person"?

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

a link to the forum would be swell, Aunty doggie..

- - - Updated - - -

Because I am not my person. So why would I want to have it represent me

---

My mosquito bites are also swell(ing).

They too have nothing to do with anything - much like your thread.

Now seriously, I strongly suggest you start a blog or go elsewhere to discuss your nonsense.

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

how do I get rid of my person?

---

a long soak in a tub of hydrochloric acid should get rid of "your person" just fine and quite completely.

silly servants have fun with your sovereignty, where are the lawyers?

- - - Updated - - -

id like to know more

Quote:

---

Quoting ClaimMyName

---

silly servants have fun with your sovereignty, where are the lawyers?

---

at the end of your arm accepting that check you wrote to hire them.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

You know where this is probably headed, dontcha? :D

---

Oh yeah ... just wanna hear him actually try to explain it.

Here's an article where this was actually tried:

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_...0d685f910.html

I do not agree to joinder.

I think he is referring to the legal person - as in corporations are persons - as in the c'est que trust. Hopefully he doesnt want to give up his status as a PEOPLE...

Quote:

---

Quoting QuiXotiC

---

I think he is referring to the legal person - as in corporations are persons - as in the c'est que trust. Hopefully he doesnt want to give up his status as a PEOPLE...

---

Do you mean "c’est tui que"?

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Do you mean "c’est tui que"?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Quoting QuiXotiC

---

Yes

---

Yeah. Not so much.

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting QuiXotiC

---

I think he is referring to the legal person - as in corporations are persons - as in the c'est que trust. Hopefully he doesnt want to give up his status as a PEOPLE...

---

He doesn't have to incorporate.

But, if he thinks that he can avoid being subject to the law, this claptrap ain't gonna fly.

Quote:

---

Quoting QuiXotiC

---

I think he is referring to the legal person - as in corporations are persons - as in the c'est que trust. Hopefully he doesnt want to give up his status as a PEOPLE...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Go right ahead and share the definition you're looking at.

---

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.

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.

---

Persons are either natural or jurisdictional -

Quote:

---

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.

---

The above references are from Blacks Law

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?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

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?

---

OK TROLL,
1) I said use dictionaries Legal Dictionaries
2) I chose blacks law to reference primarily
3) Do you contend those definitions are inapplicable?

The constitution is not from this century nor the magna carta, would you cite those as a bad source? I have the 10th edition of blacks at home...(let me get back to you) it is not available to me right now (unlike the 2nd/3rd on thelawdictionary.com). The fact that in 1910 we could distinguish people and persons, and the fact that law is supposed to be interpreted with the original writers intentions makes me question why you think because an established definition is old it is unusable...

If you'ld care to explain how those definitions do not apply today I'd be interested. Also if taxing matters understands the fictitious / juridical persons why does he then try to associate people with persons through terms defined illegally :wallbang:? One of the People is not synonymous to a person. OP is asking about how to get rid of his Legal Person (to the best of what I can make out)...

Quote:

---

Quoting QuiXotiC

---

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.

---

Well, first of all you need to understand that courts apply the general meaning of a word in the English language unless there is a specific definition for a word in a statute or regulation that is different or more specific. Second, Black’s Law Dictionary has substantially the same definitions. The 8th Edition, published in 2004, defines person as: “A human being. Also termed natural person.” It defines artificial person as “An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.” You’ll note that is exactly what I said before, and that Black’s definition of person matches up nicely with the ordinary English use of the word described by Webster’s.

Note that in both dictionaries a person is defined as a human being. Black’s goes into more detail to say that an artificial person is a legal entity that is given some of the rights and responsibilities of a human. That tells you that in the law humans are persons, and that the use of the word person does not, as some of the sovereign individual crowd argues, mean that person excludes humans and only refers to artificial entities like corporations. Rather the term person as used in the law generally includes both humans and artificial entities like corporations. This is why people who make the argument that person does not include them lose in court and look like fools to the judge when they do it.

As for relying on a century old dictionary and heavily redacted century old articles, if that’s what someone is relying on for their argument rather than readily available current materials, that tells you a lot about just how weak their argument is.

Actually, if it needs to be said from somebody who relies upon Social Security: Mark of the Beast as a primary source, his sources are worse than you think.

We can reference an unfortunately incomplete scan of the text from which the ALP was supposedly extricated. The first sentence in the quote is from page 138 of the work, and relates to the authors' effort to be precise in their language so as to avoid confusing the reader, and when they might substitute words in order to make the meaning of a historic work more clear:

Quote:

---

Quoting Jurisprudence & Institutions, Page 137-138

---

In the present chapter we are obliged to discuss words which have been in constant use for centuries, associated with the same ideas, though ever changing somewhat in meaning to suit the requirements and notions of the age and people using them.

§ 56. Meaning of leading words obscure. Mr. Austin says: "Of all the perplexing questions which the science of jurisprudence presents, the notion of status or condition is incomparably the most difficult, and much of the obscurity in which it is involved arises from the way it has been treated by the modern commentators upon the Roman law"

We may substitute for the word "status" in the above sentence the word "person;" for, if we do not find them synonymous, we will find the two terms very intimately associated. 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 of the word in all the phases of its proper use.

---

That is, the authors are explaining that when they allude to the works of historic legal philosophers, such as the works of John Austin, they may use slightly different words than the original in order to try to better convey the meaning of the passage to a then-modern audience. The authors expressed that when doing so, they would strive to show etymology and prior use:

Quote:

---

In the discussion of this question, two methods are admissible : one is to state the meaning of the words used as they obtain today without reference to what their meaning has been heretofore; the other is more like the method pursued in comparative jurisprudence, of showing the etymology and prior use of the terms in other systems, directly or remotely connected with our own. The latter course will be adopted ; for while it may not have the same appearance of originality, and may detract somewhat from the literary style of the work, it will nevertheless put the reader directly in possession of the materials which prove or refute the argument; and a knowledge of the prior use of words is always of great value in a proper understanding of their present meaning.

---

As used in the "quote" above, the sentence at issue was taken completely out of context and was completely misrepresented by the author.

The second portion of the quote comes from a much later point in the book -- which is distorted in the scan -- but that's not particularly significant because, as it turns out, it's a part of an extended quote of one of Austin's historic lectures:

Quote:

---

Quoting Lectures on Jurisprudence

---

I shall take this occasion of recalling your attention to double meaning of persona in the Roman law as signify sometimes a physical or real person and sometimes a or condition for the purpose of observing that the acceptation of persona combined with that of res as in certain cases rights and obligations throws light on the celebrated distinction between jus and jus personarum phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others -- rights of persons and rights of things. Jus personarum did not mean law persons or rights of persons but law of status or condition A person is here not a physical or individual person the status or condition with which he is invested. It is remarkable confirmation of this that Gaius, in the margin, purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the has entitled it thus, De conditione homimim : and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek has translated jus personarum -- η των πρόσωπων διαιρεσις -- Divisio personarum : understanding evidently by persona or πμόσωπον not an individual or physical, but the status, condition, or character borne by physical persons. This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus personarum which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale. The law of persons the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law rights and obligations considered in a general manner or distinguished from those peculiar collections of rights and which are styled conditions and considered apart.

---

So yeah... if we're interpreting Roman legal philosophy, Austin has a point. As presented? It's difficult to imagine how the "quote" could have been presented with less honesty.

If only there were a "Like" button for TM and Mr. K's most recent posts. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If only there were a "Like" button for TM and Mr. K's most recent posts. :)

---

Double like, and a croissant :)

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

In the discussion of this question, two methods are admissible : one is to state the meaning of the words used as they obtain today without reference to what their meaning has been heretofore; the other is more like the method pursued in comparative jurisprudence, of showing the etymology and prior use of the terms in other systems, directly or remotely connected with our own. The latter course will be adopted ; for while it may not have the same appearance of originality, and may detract somewhat from the literary style of the work, it will nevertheless put the reader directly in possession of the materials which prove or refute the argument; and a knowledge of the prior use of words is always of great value in a proper understanding of their present meaning.

---

Now that we are back on topic,

How do you get rid of your "person", while still retaining your status as one of the People (I will be saying a People from this point as I am referring to a singular from the group)

I would think one way to do so would be to have the person die?
Could you file personal bankruptcy/insolvency directly related to the status of the legal person?

Ultimately I think the question OP is trying to ask - Can I live in america(canada?) without having a legal fiction and operate in law and nature only through ones sovereign capacity as a People?

I think what you are asking is, "Can I do what I want without being subject to the laws of the United States or the state I am in?" The answer is, "No."

First off, I'm not a soverign citizen, "freeman on the land", or any of the such.

I have read No Treason by Lysander Spooner - and while the argument to its full extent I do not agree with, it is not poorly articulated or void of good logic.

I think "getting rid of your person" leaves you at a sever disadvantage in the world as it exists.
However, when considering american government, and the flow of sovereignty, I would like to cite the Declaration of Independence.

Quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

Now, to the best of my understanding, sovereignty flows from the American Citizen to the (State, Legislature, and Courts via the Constitution), and then to the least sovereign the Federal Government.

The question at hand here is "How Do I Get Rid of My Person" which IF POSSIBLE and to what extent would that affect the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of non criminal courts (courts of equity, chancery).

Obviously a People cannot violate the inalienable rights of other People or the rights of other persons. A People probably cant contract (at least not one enforceable through american courts).

Giving up your person seems like a stupid thing to do to me that doesn't mean I understand it to be impossible or illegal.

Perhaps it would be best to address these issues with the actual OP.

Except he hasn't been back since the day after he started this thread...

I enjoy discussing this topic ;) as I would describe America as the best example of an Anarcho-capitalist state. I love explaining to brainwashed libertarians that they actually are voluntarily participating, and have given there consent to be governed by the laws of the United States.