Cody's Right To Travel

[ezrhythm]

In order to be a "person" as within this California (and most other states) vehicle code, you must be ALL of the definition's adjectives. Otherwise they would put "or" in between the adjectives of the definition. Are you a firm AND a partnership AND a corporation AND a trust?

'Person' means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or trust.

In the following definition "or" is used because class A, class B and class C are all not collectively required to meet the defined term.

(b) (1) "Commercial motor vehicle" means any vehicle or combination of vehicles that requires a class A or class B license, or a class C license with an endorsement issued pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 15278.

There are NO OTHER vehicles other than a "Commercial motor vehicle" that require a class A, B or C license.

Since I have used the above definition in this post, I will also add this definition;

(2) "Commercial motor vehicle" does not include any of the following:
(A) A recreational vehicle, as defined in Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code....

18010. "Recreational vehicle" means both of the following:
(a) A motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping
trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation
for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, that meets all of
the following criteria:
(1) It contains less than 320 square feet of internal living room
area, excluding built-in equipment, including, but not limited to,
wardrobe, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, and bath or
toilet rooms.
(2) It contains 400 square feet or less of gross area measured at
maximum horizontal projections.
(3) It is built on a single chassis.
(4) It is either self-propelled, truck-mounted, or permanently towable on the highways without a permit.
(b) A park trailer, as defined in Section 18009.3.

According the the definition above, most likely you may claim your automobile to be a "Recreational vehicle".

(m) "Noncommercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles that is not included within the definition in subdivision (b).
((b) is the 1st (b) I posted above.

You will not find a "Noncommercial motor vehicle" or a "Recreational vehicle" license in the vehicle code because none exists.)

[Big Al]

Remember the 14th amendment and it's "all persons born in the UNITED STATES"?

Logic dictates that this was written for a class of people to give them rights they did not have before the writing of the 14th.

Look at what the courts did with the 14th after to include corporations. This continues to this day, this interpretation. In fact the majority of the opinions are written in this manor to reflect the the corporation as person.

What is missing is the understanding that when these codes say natural persons to whom among the natural persons do they refer? Is everybody a school buss driver? Is everybody a ambulance driver?

Where the intended confusion comes in is who has the authority to hear these administrative law cases? Is it your locale court? If so where did they get that authority to hear that type of case?

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by rentiap

mrg;
I have asked this same question in an earlier thread and it was mostly ignoored.
Though I did not present it as well as you have here.
Maybe this time someone can answer this question.

Properly it cannot be used but in this case they add the word "natural" in order to assist the deception. If a "natural person" is to be defined as a living man, woman or human being it would be stated as such.
Since it can't be defined as such, it isn't.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

So how do you validate that?

If the term "natural person" is "legislatively created" by inclusion in a legislative act of creation, which seems to be the case, how can it be used with an undisclosed term to relate to anything else "legislatively created?"

And I am not intending disrespect to anyone or trying to discredit anyone, I just want to definitively know.

It is always a plessure to have your posts and critiques. Thank you. There is a reason you are on my buddy list.

I do not see any definition that says a natural person is something other then a flesh and blood man. Defnintions please?

Natural person can be used in the definition of person when the definition of person is not a sentence but a list of inclusions. Then those lists of inclusions have actual definitions that give body and meaning to the statute.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Codee,

I wasnt busting on you for using natural person as a tenet of an arguement so please dont take it that way. I was actually making a joke that in some states a person is a 'natural person' by definition and in some states a person is a corporate person.

I was not trying to bust you back. I just wanted topoint out that in some states "Natural person" is included in the definition of person in their codes. But you need to not give up and keep looking and go through the other steps I outlined. I think you are doing great. You will be free from this crap soon. You obviously care to free yourself. Good job.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Codee

You look up natural person in a dictionary and get back to me on this thread. I use the deffinitions that are common to me. If I have to use a dictionary that no one can find then that definition sucks.

I have looked up natural person and I believe it is the person naturally created by a baby being born.

My answer to your question would be I AM the natural person in relation to all of those unatural persons you listed.

I am definitly taking the side that a "natural person" is always in a flesh and blood man or woman. I strongly encourage you to show support for another definition.

Codee, ok; lemme add alittle of how i see this.

You are attempting to distinguish "natural person" from outside a context of law.

what or who is it? I also think you're wanting to distinguish without considering what
legislatures meant to meant "natural person" as. When we look at law, we must be
cognizant of statutory construction *and* how "judges" and "lawyers" read the law. We
may not like them nor how they are taught but we must put on their mind-set in order
to know what they meant. Lawyers write the law; and so we must think like them in order
to understand what they meant.

the Definition of PERSON in legislation usually proceeds from the general to the specific.
This is what Courts says (i forget where I read that) "natural person" leads the definition
followed by entities that are defined in law, that is, various kinds of corporations:
corporations, trusts, partnships, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion of what a "natural person" is, but I think
that you're heading in a wrong direction when you miss the conclusion that courts have made.
a legislated entity (a PERSON) always consists of natural (people) who give "life"
to the entity. We the people (generically) give life to the PERSON because that's what
God in Heaven gave to us. An entity is a dead thing exactly because it has no spirit
and no breathe (obviously, it has a body, a corpse) - the spirit and the breath come from
us.

As we do the speaking as speaking-spirits (Sage commentary identified what Dad did in Gen 1)
We give life (animation) to dead things.

Legally (keyword) speaking, it's agency, contract, master/slave-employer/employee relationship.

Those terms just mentioned can all be found in a standard word encyclopedia in any/every
law library.

Like the word of God as presented in the Bible, the law is a puzzle that has to be studied
in a coherent whole in order for all apparent contradictions to be resolved in harmony with the
rest of the whole.

And as courts have said, "that which is contrary to the Constitution is void ab initio"

That can be seen as a restatement of scripture that says "rightly divide" for if there is
a miss-parsage of scripture (or Man's law) then the whole coherent chain breaks apart.

as it is also writ, Psalms 12.8, "The words of the Lord are pure words as (like) silver
tried (purified) in a furnace of earth (volcanoe) dipped seven times." Dipping in lava
would melt silver and incrementally remove the dross.

Does this post help?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by mrg

"Natural person," would, by applied logic, have the same definition in "law," as the term "person" qualified by the term "natural."

Absent a logically constructed definition in "law" of "natural person," in order for the term to have any meaning, there needs to be a definition in "law" of the qualifying modifier "natural," and a lawfully prescribed process, and lawful reason for applying the defined modification to the limitations of the priorly defined term.

Otherwise, in "law," or otherwise, how could the term "natural person" not be either meaningless, or required to be specifically read, definitively, in light of the definiton in law of the term "person" as the paramount term?



Of what validity, either in "law," or logic, is a definition of a term that uses the term itself in defining that term?

Why does "law" define terms, within "law," if the commonly accepted definition of terms is to be presumed to apply?

Boxes within boxes within boxes.

Law (actually it's "lawyers", "judges" and legislators) defines (re-)words because
they arent writing law IN English. They are writing in Legalese.

Hence the need for Law Dictionaries.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by idknow

the Definition of PERSON in legislation usually proceeds from the general to the specific.
This is what Courts says (i forget where I read that) "natural person" leads the definition
followed by entities that are defined in law, that is, various kinds of corporations:
corporations, trusts, partnships, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion of what a "natural person" is, but I think
that you're heading in a wrong direction when you miss the conclusion that courts have made.
a legislated entity (a PERSON) always consists of natural (people) who give "life"
to the entity. We the people (generically) give life to the PERSON because that's what
God in Heaven gave to us. An entity is a dead thing exactly because it has no spirit
and no breathe (obviously, it has a body, a corpse) - the spirit and the breath come from
us.

Natural Persons have a Natural Existance and can only be disolved by extinguishing the man. An artificial person is created by paper and is extinguished in the same.

I have a person. I use it. It is mine. If anyone tries to charge it that is like charging my left hand... we got a problem.

My person is a part of me.

I do not think that natural person is always concidered. Not when the definition of person lists inclusions and natural person is left out. And it is often left out.

But not always left out.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by idknow

Law (actually it's "lawyers", "judges" and legislators) defines (re-)words because
they arent writing law IN English. They are writing in Legalese.

Hence the need for Law Dictionaries.

Got a judge once to admit that leagalese was essentially a foreign language. I made a stink trying to get a translator for like 20 minutes. OOOOhhhhhh that was fun.

[Codee]

Ultimately I am thinking this...

I have found no reason to spend any energy trying to prove I am not a natural person. I cannot find advantage in law by doing so.

I can see that the administrative codes almost never apply to a private natural person.