IRC section 6651(a) (2)

[ThomPaine]

so how does one refer to a free and sovereign flesh and blood being that is not a corporate, legal or fictional entity, one having unalienable rights and such.??

[rentiap]

Man/ Woman

[rentiap]

LBFBBSM/W works also

[Petrous]

Out of curiosity, are you offered the $500 penalty or the $5000 penalty?

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

WTF?

Prove to me that a "natural person" is not a legal fiction because I believe that is exactly what it is. Or maybe you are hue-man? That means color of man.


US Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1
All PERSONS born or NATURALIZED in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURIDICTION THEREOF are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Because the practice is consistent and seemingly universal, it cannot be without purpose. Which is to say, there is some reason for name perversion. The reason is explained by definitions found at 15 U.S.C. § 11 27, reproduced below in relative part:

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [Laws in effect as of January 27, 1998]
Sec. 1127. Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

In the construction of this chapter, unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context;

The United States includes and embraces all territory which is under its jurisdiction and control.

The word "commerce'' means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

The term "person'' and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a juristic person as well as a natural person. The term "juristic person'' includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law.

The term "person'' also includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

The terms "applicant'' and "registrant'' embrace the legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns of such applicant or registrant.

The terms "trade name'' and "commercial name'' mean any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.

The term "trademark'' includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof;

used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.

The term "service mark'' means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof;

used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.

The term "use in commerce'' means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mar k. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce;

1)on goods when;
2)it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on do cuments associated with the goods or their sale, and
3)the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person r endering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

This section is referred to in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1526 & 1595a , which primarily involve maritime drug trade. This is one of three primary purposes of the juristic or commercial name, i.e., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe. The juristic or commercial name, trade name, is predicated on maritime causes, i.e., private international law.
http://www.svpvril.com/dmjuristic.html

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY / 8th Edition

[ThomPaine]

Black's Sixth defines Man as a human being or person of the male sex. Person is defined as a human being or a natural person.

Neither Human nor Human being are defined therein.

Webster's defines human as a bipedal primate mammal, Man is defined as an individual human being with its origins in Old English, mons means of the male species.

human from an etymological dictionary:
c.1250, from M.Fr. humain "of or belonging to man," from L. humanus, probably related to homo (gen. hominis) "man," and to humus "earth," on notion of "earthly beings," as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam "man," from adamah "ground"). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) "man, male person." Displaced its O.E. cognate guma (from P.Gmc. *guman-) which survives only in disguise in bridegroom. First record of humankind is from 1645. Humanoid (1918) is a hybrid of L. humanus and Gk. -oeides "like," from eidos "form, shape" (see -oid).

and some subscribe to this theory:

hue from the same dictionary:
"color," O.E. hiw "color, form, appearance, beauty," earlier hiow, heow, from P.Gmc. *khiwjan (cf. O.N. hy "bird's down," Swed. hy "skin, complexion," Goth. hiwi "form, appearance"), probably cognate with Skt. chawi "hide, skin, complexion, color, beauty, splendor." A common word in O.E., squeezed into obscurity after c.1600 by color.

[rottweiler]

Quoting a book title does not constitute proof in my opinion. Show me the definition of "living natural person" in Black's 8th Ed. Then explain to me how that trumps the constitution.

US Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1
All PERSONS born or NATURALIZED in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURIDICTION THEREOF are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally Posted by clarkee

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY / 8th Edition

[rottweiler]

How can We the People be subject to the Congress that they created? That is impossible. But if you use a strawman it will be subject because they have enough military power to enforce that. If you insist on providing personal service as a creation of Congress for another creation of Congress you will be subject to Congress.

If you don't believe me clarkee, that is your choice. I just pointed it out for others so they can see who the IRS is taxing, your strawman which is a "living natural person".

I believe the strawman comes into existence when you do something that is in violation of the Commandments. It is the stranger within you that that does evil, like being possessed by a demon.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

How can We the People be subject to the Congress that they created?

Through Usurpation!

Every great robber styles as sedition and faction every utterance that subtracts from his admiration, that interrupts his wild and revenous schemes or that attempts to preserve that rights of the people. -Cato

Originally Posted by rottweiler

That is impossible.

It is unjust, thus, unlawful. However, it has happened many times, to many societies. This is what the Constitutional framers were warning about.

George Washington touched on this issue of unjust domination in his farwell address:

Washington's Farewell Address 1796

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Originally Posted by rottweiler

But if you use a strawman it will be subject because they have enough military power to enforce that. If you insist on providing personal service as a creation of Congress for another creation of Congress you will be subject to Congress.

As long as the people are ignorant, those who wish to steal power will do so. Of course, many wish to remain ignorant, so that their view of the world will not suffer and be burden by things that are not to their taste. They say, tell us smooth things.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

If you don't believe me clarkee, that is your choice.

true.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I just pointed it out for others so they can see who the IRS is taxing, your strawman which is a "living natural person".

If some believe they should pay, who can stop them, and would they offer support anyway? You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. Yet, like you, I feel that it is important to speak to others, and share ideas, this is what free speech is all about, in my view.

Every mind is self owned, and , therefore, that first property; everything else in nature is unowned. Every action caused by a mind - the movement of an arm, the speaking of a word - is owned by that mind. Every liability and every benefit generated by an action accrues to the mind that gave rise to the action. This is the origin of all property, and all liability. -Locke

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I believe the strawman comes into existence when you do something that is in violation of the Commandments. It is the stranger within you that that does evil, like being possessed by a demon.

Here is a slightly different view; our ignorance, and lack of desire to be free, allows us to be enslaved by those that have bad intentions.

As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. -John Locke

Common Law of fundamental Rights...are not to be altered by the Legislative Authority or free Assembly...under what pretense of allegation soever. - I Kurland

However, they may be altered if the people will not support the law, in their hearts, because the people give themselves away, to the liar and the deceiver. When the people enjoy destroying others, then this love may visit them also.

If you were on a jury, what should you do? Should We the People support the law?

Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the King's peace and summoned to stand trial. As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to place their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on.

[...]Three more times the jury went out and returned with the same verdict. Finally, they refused to go out any more. The judge fined each of them forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid.

Emphasis added.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/.../penntrial.htm

The point is that these great individuals stood by their convictions, and conscience, regardless the odds, or the presumed outcome. The jury refused to bow to the tyranny of the court (yes, these, mostly unnamed souls, are heroes too.)! When an individual does this, he or she is a leader, not a follower. At the very least, they lead themselves, don't you think?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

The point is that these great individuals stood by their convictions, and conscience, regardless the odds, or the presumed outcome. The jury refused to bow to the tyranny of the court

(yes, these, mostly unnamed souls, are heroes too.)!

Clark: Call over the jury.

Cryer: O Yes!
Thomas Veer,
Ed. Bushel,
John Hammond,
Charles Milson,
Gregory Walklet,
John Brightman,
William Plumsted,
Henry Henley,
Thomas Damask,
Henry Michel,
William Lever,
John Baily.

FROM:

The People's Ancient and Just Liberties
Asserted
in the
TRYAL
of William Penn, and William Mead
At the Sessions held at the Old-Baily in London, the
first, third, fourth and fifth of Sept. 70 against
the most Arbitrary procedure of that Court.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...liberties.html

Read the whole thing.

Pennsylvania is named for William Penn who came here, in part, seeking freedom from what was suffered in the case above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was, arguably, the capital of the nation founded by The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen States of the united States of America, and still, arguaby, may be.

We have come nearly full circle, (if not far beyond) and the above styled document is about all we have with any teeth left in it.

I know what is said by the several admirers of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, which are the rule of one, a few, and many, and are the three common ideas of government, when men discourse on the subject.

Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the frame) where the laws rule, and the people are a party to those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, or confusion.

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too.

Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments.

To support power in reverence with the people, and to secure the people from the abuse of power; that they may be free by their just obedience, and the magistrates honorable, for their just administration: for liberty without obedience is confusion, and obedience without liberty is slavery.

To carry this evenness is partly owing to the constitution, and partly to the magistracy: where either of these fail, government will be subject to convulsions; but where both are wanting, it must be totally subverted...

WILLIAM PENN

I have "jury duty" later today. LOL