Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
....Your interpritation is flawed and erroneous, thus it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument.
|
So far, I've had three judges recuse themselves from any case involving me, another judge who retired rather than answer my questions, and another judge who refused to act against me when confronted with these facts. Hence, your contention that "...it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument." is, in and of itself, erroneous. There is no "legal argument", because what I've given is facts that the Supreme Court for the united States of America has confirmed.
The various Codes of the States defines a "person" as
"..an individual, corporation, trust, estate, association or other legal or commercial entity."
The Supreme Court for the united States of America held in
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens that: "
...The definition of "person"...includes...any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity."
Even Supreme Court admits that a "natural person" is still a "legal entity", and that the term "natural person" falls within the definition of "person". A "natural person" is a human being, but it is a human being that is legally recognized as a "legal" entity, and not recognized as a "sovereign".
Linear Mode
