Dan Meadors old site online

[aksis]

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Person=Natural Person=Living Flesh and Blood Man

That isn't what Bouvier's says codee. THis is what it says:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children (like a mask), who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms.

Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c.

A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

[mrg]

.......................................

[weishaupt1776]

[mrg]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Alright...........

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

DUMB F-U-C-K

[Codee]

Originally Posted by aksis

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Person=Natural Person=Living Flesh and Blood Man

That isn't what Bouvier's says codee. THis is what it says:

Well it does say that if you read it all.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

So right above is the big derailment. Every one sees “not exactly synonymous terms” and gets all excited with there misinterpretation. This phrase could easily read “Are almost exactly synonymous terms” and it would have the same meaning. But lets look further. Further we will see that a woman is a natural person and that right there with nothing else could be the justification for the terms not being synonymous.
The paragraph above then goes on to state that human beings are men whether or not they be persons. This would be a native man living off the land away from society. Any man inside society would therefore have some rank and therefore would be a person.
Lets all keep in mind however that the opposing argument here is that ALL persons are artificial. NOPE. Read below…

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

The above states that a Corporation is known as an artificial person. OK? It does not say that “ALL MEN PERSONS ARE ARTIFICIAL.” It does not say that. From the above paragraphs it is apparent that there are TWO types of persons. One type is a corporation and the other type is a Natural Person or Human Being in Society. So how does one know if the word person is being used to describe a corporation and not a man or woman in there relation to society? Read below…

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

So if the word “PERSON” appears in a legislative act then it DEFAULTS to mean natural person. The term “PERSON” however can only mean an “artificial person” (Of any type) IF there is context to suggest otherwise. This means that the DICTION of the word is means a man or woman in society and it will take a definition, or some other context enhancement, in the body of law to override the diction or default use. So now we see that PERSON=NATURAL PERSON unless the law says that it is to be applied to artificial persons, either explicitly or EVEN THROUGH IMPLICATION (CONTEXT!!!) So I still have to show that NATURAL PERSON=MAN AND WOMAN for my little equation of “PERSON=NATURAL PERSON=MAN AND WOMAN. Remember that THE TERMS ARE NOT exactly SYNONYMOUS however absent showing an intent to have the law apply to artificial persons a Natural person will be intended. So absent that showing, MAN/WOMAN is for all practical purposes here, synonymous with PERSON. However I must first relate natural person to show that it truly does mean a man or a woman. Read below…

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

So I think that pretty much proves it. I have provided my proof. Any of you bleach huffing A$$HOLES have a better proof. Or should I just accept your insisting as proof?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

So I guess you did not want to be shown how stupid you are and chose wisely to remove your post.

BTW change your .info to a com and you will go to one a real website on gold and silver.

goldismoney.com

Just had a few drinks with the guy on Saturday. He is a good guy. Unlike all the dumb ****s.

[mrg]

......................

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mrg

........................

[Codee]

I don't know...

Isn't that bowing motion the same one you perfected for all your pole smoking, you little chicken head?