New Yawk Citee Inc.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You're not a person? Then what are you, an ape who learned how to type English, or a visitor from another planet?

Person = human being. You, me, everyone still breathing who is a member of the species homo sapiens.

How do you know what he is? You are just guessing, because you have no first hand knowledge of his status.
Typical arrogance as displayed by bar members.
Flat earther.

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

How do you know what he is? You are just guessing, because you have no first hand knowledge of his status.
Typical arrogance as displayed by bar members.
Flat earther.

Flat Earther.....LOL on that one, Rob...

why I am attempting to indulge Lawyerdawg, I am not sure....

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F 2d 417, 425.

Person: "...not every human being is a person." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957

"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or OTHER LEGAL OR COMMERCIAL ENTITY.

"In common usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

How do you know what he is? You are just guessing, because you have no first hand knowledge of his status.
Typical arrogance as displayed by bar members.
Flat earther.

Learned authorities (scientists) say the earth is round. Therefore, a flat earther is someone totally out of step with those authorities.

Learned authorities (attorneys, law professors, and judges) say "sovrun citizun" theories are bogus.

The flat earthers are analogous to "sovrun citizuns." Not to learned legal authorities.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F 2d 417, 425.

Yes, it includes things other than human beings. But it does not EXCLUDE human beings. Work on that reading comprehension, boyo.

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or OTHER LEGAL OR COMMERCIAL ENTITY.

You fall under the classification "individual" in that list, chuckles. As a person, you're a legal entity.

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

"In common usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

Read the whole case you're quoting, not just some snippet you glommed from some knucklehead's website. The sovereign in the context meant by this quote is the government, not you.

[ThomPaine]

I knew it wouldnt do any good, shouldnt have wasted the bandwidth and webspace... Hundreds of cases have been won this way, I have won several myself... some 'people' never learn....dont quit your day job buddy, just keep on living in your little world of lies and deceit and coercion..

Thom


Flat Earther......hhahahahahaha :-)

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I knew it wouldnt do any good, shouldnt have wasted the bandwidth and webspace... Hundreds of cases have been won this way, I have won several myself... some 'people' never learn....dont quit your day job buddy, just keep on living in your little world of lies and deceit and coercion..

Thom


Flat Earther......hhahahahahaha :-)

And yet, when you get asked to cite those cases, so someone else can look them up in the public record...

you fold.

Let me guess...you won, but the judge ordered the case sealed, right? Typical wingnut excuse.

[Jerry Pitts]

Speaking of inclusions and exclusions, look what the Florida Statutes say in their opening chapter:

"

Title I
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES Chapter 1
DEFINITIONS View Entire Chapter

1.01 Definitions.--In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
.
.
.
(13) The word "minor" includes any person who has not attained the age of 18 years."

The above ‘word’ association clearly shows why corporations are required to have an Attorney represent it in court; especially corporations that fall in the category of ‘minor’. This is Language specific. This cannot be rebutted on the basis of construction. A statute must mean what it says and must say what it means. The use of the word “any” prior to ‘person’ is all inclusive … no exclusions for any reason.

Yeah I know LD... there is a problem with my ability to comprehend what is written within that statute (which is more than likely going to be your response).

Jerry Carlos

[Lawdog]

1.01 Definitions.--In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

"Where the context will permit." You might need to look also at Florida statutes relating to corporations and the practice of law for more guidance in this area.

The reason a corporation needs an attorney to appear in court is because a corporation is a creature of the law, and has no existence save that which the law gives it. A natural person/individual/human being, although cognizable as a legal person, also exists in the world outside a courtroom.

FWIW, my state passed an exemption to this general rule. In small claims court, a corporation can be represented by a non-attorney who is an employee, officer, or director of the company. In all other courts, a corporation can only appear by an attorney.

[ThomPaine]

"The individual, and not the state, is the source and basis of our social compact and that sovereignty now resides in and has always resided in the individual." Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Case 151 Colo 235, 380 p 2d 34 (1962)

“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV-the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.

Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

and here goes another thread down the toilet....where's Bernie and the Judge??

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The reason a corporation needs an attorney to appear in court is because a corporation is a creature of the law, and has no existence save that which the law gives it. A natural person/individual/human being, although cognizable as a legal person, also exists in the world outside a courtroom.

Now I have got to ask you.. What is NOT a "creature of the law"? The State itself is a creature of the law, as without the manifestation of the will of man, there can be no State.

Therefore, the State is a fiction.

Jerry Carlos