"SOVEREIGN", "PERSON", "ENTITY" or "INDIVIDUAL"?

[Codee]

"Sovereignty" does not equal "sovereign." different words for a reason.

[hooded50]

I'm not sure, but I think ndusa and I may be on the same page, but misunderstanding each other.

There can be absolutely no legitimate argument that the Supreme Court of the united States of America has clearly defined between a "person" and a "sovereign".

Supreme Court has held that the "State" is an "artificial person", and, therefore, capable of nothing by itself. To say that the "State" has sued a sovereign would be like trying, with a straight face and any degree of sincerety, to convince a living, breathing sovereign that he has been sued by the likes of Woody Woodpecker or Scooby Doo.

The plain fact is that the "State" is a fictitious legal entity that only exists on paper, and in the minds of men. If you're in court, and the title of the caption is read as "State of Colorado vs. John Q. Public" (John Q. Public being the sovereign), you'll raise quite a few eyebrows if you call as a witness "the person known as the State of Colorado".

The Constitution states that you have right to face and question your accusers. Therefore, if the "State of Colorado" is your accuser, you have the right to face and question the person known as "State of Colorado". Of course, when you call "State of Colorado" to the stand as a witness, you and the judge and the prosecutor will dance to a symphony of crickets. This is because "State of Colorado" doesn't physically exist, and is incapable of bringing any charge against you. It is actually the prosecuting attorney who is bringing the charge against you, and he is doing so using the fictitious name of "State of Colorado" to avoid having to face liability himself.

No matter what state you're in, look up any statute you will, and the odds are that it will say that the statute either applies to a "person", or some variant of person such as "resident", "non-resident", " "party", etc. If you look up the definition of "resident", "non-resident", "party", etc., in the definitions section of the statutes, you will find that each of these constitutes a "person". (Example, a "resident" will be defined as "...any person who resides within this State.)

My experience is that if you push the judges and lawyers to answer the questions relating to "person" or "sovereign", they will avoid you at all costs. I've actually had several judges to refuse to hear any matter relating to me because of my questions.

What I do is send an Affidavit of Truth to the judge at his personal home address, which poses these questions to him or her. (If anyone needs a Judge's personal home address in any State for legitimate correspondence, please let me know. While you have a right to send mail to the Judge at his home address, you must understand that I will not support nor condone using a Judge's personal address to harrass a Judge, or any other form of wrongdoing. If you do anything of that nature, you're on your own.) If the Judge doesn't answer, he is in default.

I've not had one Judge or lawyer yet who has been able to disprove the facts I've presented them regarding my being "sovereign".

[palani]

The sovereign is the elector who hasn't registered.

The bill of rights applies only to the sovereign to protect him/her from the abuses of the majority.

ir·re·fra·ga·ble irrefragable
Etymology:
Late Latin irrefragabilis, from Latin in- + refragari to oppose, from re- + -fragari (as in suffragari to vote for); akin to Latin suffragium suffrage
Date: 1533
1 : impossible to refute <irrefragable arguments> 2 : impossible to break or alter <irrefragable rules>

If you vote you CANNOT refute, break or alter that which you agreed to abide by. That includes all statutes and administrative rules. You agreed to it, IRREFRAGABLY.

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by Codee

"Sovereignty" does not equal "sovereign." different words for a reason.

I think this is semantics to say that 'Sovereignty does not equal sovereign. different words for a reason.'

It is, indeed, "sovereignty" that makes a sovereign "sovereign". The Supreme Court for the united States of America has held both that "..the people are the true sovereigns..." and that "...sovereignty itself remains with the people". In a phrase, the people are the sovereigns who possess the sovereignty. Therefore, "sovereignty" versus "sovereign" is basically irrelevant semantics. The "State" is a fictitious artificial person that has absolutely no power whatsoever over a sovereign. So, to get the sovereign to submit to the State's jurisdiciton, the actors/Officers of the State must deceive the sovereign into believing that the sovereign is a fictitious legal entity called a "person", who has been sued by the artificial person called "State of Colorado".

The Supreme Court rulings state that some sovereign powers are delegated to the government by the people. This does not bestow sovereignty upon the government. It simply means that the government has been given extremely limited sovereign powers by the people, who can retract those sovereign powers at any time.

For those who doubt my word about statutes relating to fictitious legal entities called "persons", the following definitions in pertinent part are taken directly from the Colorado Revised Statutes (Colorado is a State I chose at random, and I chose random statutes, as well):

18-1-502. Requirements for criminal liability in general and for offenses of strict liability and of mental culpability:

The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically capable of performing.

4-1-308. Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest", or the like are sufficient.

Remember what I said about variations of "person" (i.e. "resident", "party", etc.)? I know there is someone out there saying "See! 4-1-308 applies to a "party", not a "person"! They will be disappointed when they go to the General Definitions section, and see the word "party" defined at 4-1-201(b)(25) as "..."Party", as distinct from a "third party", means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement..."

It's all about words. Statutes are crafted in a tricky way, to deceive the sovereign into believing that he is a fictitiouls legal entity called a "person".

[Codee]

Sovereignty in the states is wielding the power of the state to back up your actions. There are definitons for that too.

You must see how often you quotes use people (One group) instead of natural persons (individual men and women.)

Why is this so hard to grasp?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Codee

Sovereignty in the states is wielding the power of the state to back up your actions. There are definitons for that too.

You must see how often you quotes use people (One group) instead of natural persons (individual men and women.)

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Originally Posted by Codee

Hire an Attorney.

Originally Posted by Codee

Hire an Attorney.

Originally Posted by Codee

Hire an Attorney.

Originally Posted by Codee

Hire an Attorney.

Originally Posted by Codee

Hire an Attorney.

Is this advice on how to be sovereign? Is this how you wield the power in your state?

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by Codee

Sovereignty in the states is wielding the power of the state to back up your actions. There are definitons for that too.

You must see how often you quotes use people (One group) instead of natural persons (individual men and women.)

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Some people misunderstand the use of the phrase "natural person". Supreme Court has held that a "person" (of any kind) is a fictitious legal or commercial entity. Most people think that a natural person is a reference to a human being, and they are right - partially.

While a natural person is technically a human being, it is not a human being in sovereign form, but a human being in legal or commercial form. The definition of "natural person" given in Black's Law Dictionary, as well as the state codes is "A human being which has been ascribed rights and duties by the State". In other words it's more word games trying to make you think that, if you are a human being, the word "natural person" applies to you. This is ONLY if you declare yourself to be a "person". If you are a sovereign, you cannot be given rights and duties by the states, because, as Supreme Court said, "Let a State be subordinate to the people... [the State] is the inferior contrivance of man..." If a State is inferior to me, how does the State presume to tell me what my rights and duties are? It is the PEOPLE who tell the STATES what the State's rights and duties are, and the only way that role can be reversed is if the sovereigns agree to it.

If you are a sovereign (which the people are), then you are not a "person" OF ANY KIND, unless you declare yourself to be so. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held this, and "natural person" is the latest word game of the attorneys. Supreme Court says if you ARE a sovereign, you CANNOT be a "person".

[Codee]

Originally Posted by hooded50

Some people misunderstand the use of the phrase "natural person". Supreme Court has held that a "person" (of any kind) is a fictitious legal or commercial entity. Most people think that a natural person is a reference to a human being, and they are right - partially.

No they have not ruled that! You are full of Horse Sh!t! Cite you r reference please.

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

Natural person does reference human beings and men and women. They are totally right as only a man or woman can be a natural person. NOw some dirt kicking, living in the woods his whole life, man, would not be one... however any man in society is a natural person.

Only in limited sense, in one code, in one specific instance could the court have ruled that way. Your interpritation is flawed and erroneous, thus it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

No they have not ruled that! You are full of Horse Sh!t! Cite you r reference please.

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

They have never ruled that!

Natural person does reference human beings and men and women. They are totally right as only a man or woman can be a natural person. NOw some dirt kicking, living in the woods his whole life, man, would not be one... however any man in society is a natural person.

Only in limited sense, in one code, in one specific instance could the court have ruled that way. Your interpritation is flawed and erroneous, thus it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument.

Why do you curse and throw baby tantrums ?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Why do you curse and throw baby tantrums ?

Why do you suck at law and fabricate citations?