Dan Meadors old site online

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Have another drink Codee.

It will all be ok.

Just keep peckin' and supressin' the gag reflex little Chicken Head.

[mrg]

mummy and daddy really did love you little codee.

it will all be ok.

but go ahead have another drink.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

mummy and daddy really did love you little codee.

And they respect me just as much.

If it isn't NDUSA's kid i guess it has to be my mom. Good luck pole smoker. Wear lots of chap-stick.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

And they respect me just as much.

If it isn't NDUSA's kid i guess it has to be my mom.

Good luck pole smoker.

Wear lots of chap-stick.

What about whose kid?

What about your "mom?"

Did you gouge your eyes out?

[TruthQuest]

Codee,

Thanks for your response. I merely seek to broaden my knowledge, not challenge your intelligence. More questions follow.

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 terms could be considered not synonymous due to the legal requirement to be such (i.e. a black man). A black man is a flesh and blood being (man) regardless of a legal concept. He was only considered a ‘person’ ‘in contemplation of law’ due to his association and only if that association was with other accepted members (and if he was accepted by them) of that association. Again, what are your thoughts.

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…
Quote: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?

Given the time when Bouvier gave his interpretation, are you assuming that ‘man’ means ‘a male’ or a member of the ‘human race’ (mankind) given his statement ‘In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms.’?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by TruthQuest

Codee,

Thanks for your response. I merely seek to broaden my knowledge, not challenge your intelligence. More questions follow.

The terms could be considered not synonymous due to the legal requirement to be such (i.e. a black man). A black man is a flesh and blood being (man) regardless of a legal concept. He was only considered a ‘person’ ‘in contemplation of law’ due to his association and only if that association was with other accepted members (and if he was accepted by them) of that association. Again, what are your thoughts.

Yes. But the association can never be a valid one. This should be viewed in the light that the association can criminal but never lawful. All for the law as it was back then. Truth be told I am not super studied on the actual statutes in all of their enormity from the slave days. I have read some cases but I realy was just not from there. I read a lot and try to understand as much as I can. Thus the black man is usually only concidered a person in connection with an invalid action.

As to you questioning my inteligence that is fine. You ask good questions and I try to give you honest answers. You have a view or a question and you have rooted those in a foundation form dictionaries (legal ones) and law. Thank you for your responses here.



Given the time when Bouvier gave his interpretation, are you assuming that ‘man’ means ‘a male’ or a member of the ‘human race’ (mankind) given his statement ‘In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms.’?

No. Human encompasses women as well. Male is gender and man is sex. Technically. However there will be slip ups and the two are virtually synonymous in law.

If I have not answered you clearly,,, please try again.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

What about whose kid?

What about your "mom?"

Did you gouge your eyes out?

No Chicken Head, Mentaly Rearded Guy.

Just you and everyone else fu$ks you mom does not make us Oedipus.

Go stick your **** up you boy friends a$$ and call it a night.

[Codee]

So I guess this little security against Seizure will never protect you huh? You realy do not see this as saying that the people (The body politic) to be secure in there persons (themselves! Not some dumb corporation), Houses, and papers and... Right there... A person is a thing that every man has. It is his instrument by which he relates to his society. When you punish the person you lock the man up in prison and remove him from general society and place him in special society.

=
U.S. Constitution:] Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure


Amendment Text | Annotations
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I wrote last year here that the person was a thing owned by a man and a part of him just like his hand. I guess the founding fathers were just a little smarter then Aksis and (M)ental (R)etard (G)uy.

I see the 4th as the guaranty to not being alienated form MY person. Oh well. Give it up if you want to. I don't see any advantage to doing so. You will just become their person then when your argument fails that you are not a person while driving, riding a bus, buying something, using mail, the internet... Good luck!

[weishaupt1776]

People go off way to hard on "person". Look it up in Bouviers.

The roots of it are in Roman Civil Law, but there are distincitons made in what "capacity" any person may be operating in

I am not afraid to admit that I am a person - however I make it VERY CLEAR in my briefs what PROPRIETARY CAPACITY I am operating in

[Codee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

People go off way to hard on "person". Look it up in Bouviers.

The roots of it are in Roman Civil Law, but there are distincitons made in what "capacity" any person may be operating in

I am not afraid to admit that I am a person - however I make it VERY CLEAR in my briefs what PROPRIETARY CAPACITY I am operating in

Yes Weis.

I may be person in respect to the California Vehicle Code… however I might not be a person in respect to the California Health and Safety Code. Both codes have different definitions of “person.”

Just like I am a person in some codes I may not be the type of person in the 14th.

There is just not ONE definition for person. There are many definitions. And the diction for person when used in a statute is a natural person attached to a flesh and blood man.