[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by antjraf

Seems to me that we must concentrate on the definitions of "person or property". Since we already have a good idea that we are not "persons", let us look at the definition of property...

It is true that we are not "persons". We are spiritual beings, that are inhabiting physical bodies, and it is these physical bodies with which the secular world looks upon as "person". The persona is according to the definition, a mask that conceals the real entity behind the mask.

Originally Posted by antjraf

PROPERTY - Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.

The intangible 'right considered as a source or element of income or wealth', can be construed as either the Spirit of man or the energy used for production by the human vessel, and controlled by the Spirit of man. Therefore, the physical body belongs to the Spiritual man and the 'cargo' which the man is carrying (the Soul) is property that belongs to God. When man disregards his obligation to safeguard the property of God, and engages in activities of 'commerce' for a purpose that is counter productive to the primary obligation of protecting the property of God, then man has 'gone a whoring' and has become involved in serving two masters. Man has then breached his contract with God, and subsequently, man will then have to answer to the authorities that control commerce in the secular world.

Originally Posted by antjraf

The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law.

Which 'law' are you referring to? Surely you must be talking about secular law as opposed to Gods' Law. I suggest that you refer to secular law, as you have designated that those 'rights' are based upon that which 'pleases'; presumably these pleasures are also based upon the physical senses and not necessarily the spiritual guidance of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, with the 'provision' you have stipulated, it is not to be discounted, the possibility that you could be referencing the Laws of God, thus the reason for my opening question 'Which law?'.

Originally Posted by antjraf

All things are not the subject of property - the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away.

The exclusive ownership of ALL THINGS belongs to God. With the whisper of His voice, ALL THINGS can return to nothingness from whence the came. Therefore, as long as the man is obeying the dictates of the Exclusive Owner, then no other man has any right to interfere with those rights granted to the man that is faithfully obeying the dictates of the Only Potentate.

Originally Posted by antjraf

Property is divided into real property, and personal property.

Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have redueed to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi.

But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without ally relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property.

Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action.

Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possessiou of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.

The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By ************. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law.

The above assertions are primarily based upon secular law, as they appear to be almost direct quotations from some legal dictionary. Correct me if I am mistaken in this analysis of the above dissertation that you have made. The exception being those references to property lost by an act of God.

Originally Posted by antjraf

Notice that the definition includes "intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth."
Hmmm... what could that mean? Anyway we need a solid definition as to what the vehicle code considers property. If I have a TV in my car with me, am I transporting property? The code says "is or may" which means either. So taking out "may" will make it read... "Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is transported or drawn upon a highway".
We know we are not "persons" but what is property?

Let us not forsake the use of a rickshaw when used to transport another man or woman or other cargo. It is not a motor vehicle, but surely will get you a citation for using it on the roadways.

Jerry Carlos