Cody's Right To Travel

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Codee

You look up natural person in a dictionary and get back to me on this thread. I use the definitions 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.

but "natural person" or "natural man" to use the biblical phrsae that Paul wrote
is one who is either not-reborn or reborn but not walking in the spirit and still
subject to all the natural lust of the flesh.

Thus, "natural man" is a being who is subject all their life time to fear and torment.

I dont think I want to be known as a "natural man".

as for the definition of "natural man" being "a (sea) monster",
that is truly an unkind and unloving definition and I won't use it.

[idknow]

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.

MrG, from your response above, i think you mis-parsed what i wrote.

I used the word "related" to indicate that an individual;

then acording to legislative and judicial construction, we have to see all the words
defining "PERSON" together;

We know that a PERSON is legislatively created entities,
and that they have no spirit and no soul of their own,
thus they need representatives to do their speaking and handling
to be the interface between teh dead entity and the world and everything in it.

That is what and who an "individual" is.

Just as we are the eyes, hands, mouth for God - a living spirit;
the dead, man-made things also need the living to do things for the dead.

does this make sense?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by idknow

but "natural person" or "natural man" to use the biblical phrsae that Paul wrote
is one who is either not-reborn or reborn but not walking in the spirit and still
subject to all the natural lust of the flesh.

Thus, "natural man" is a being who is subject all their life time to fear and torment.

I dont think I want to be known as a "natural man".

as for the definition of "natural man" being "a (sea) monster",
that is truly an unkind and unloving definition and I won't use it.

A definition from 2000 years ago aint going to cut it in court. Esspetially when the terms natural man and natural person are not the same term.

Like I said earlier... you need to find the definitions in accesable DICTIONARIES. I would not recomend siting Paul as the definitive expert in wording. He was just ONE man. And he wasn't Jesus.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually, the code's definition of Person includes "an individual". Some law dictionaries (e.g. Bouvier, Raden) don't even bother with Individual, suggesting that ordinary Dictionaries of English will suffice. Some law dictionaries (e.g. Black's, Words & Phrases) bother only with the uncommon or non-obvious meanings. Ballentine's makes it clear that Individual means, inter alia, "a natural person" - that is, a human being.

An individual WHAT? Individual can mean an entire group thought of as a single unit.

The term "Natural Person" is what that code needs. Then they could say an individual, natural person. But they do not. I am assuming yu are tlaking about one of the codes which recognizes "Natural person."

In the future since I have gone into many states' codes please at least refer to the state or the post so that my reponse to you might be more perfect.

Normal definitions... Dictionary,com is way more normal Balantines.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

INDIVIDUAL
–noun
1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.
4. a group considered as a unit.

Last time I checked mulitiple definitions were decided in favor of the defendant. And then one must ask why would they use natural person in their code if it was already listed as an individual. Does the legislature like being redundent? Nope, they do not.

[Codee]

Alright it is time to introduce a new twist... This is also something I came across in a case I was involved in when I was twenty (seven years ago.) I was arrest for "Entering a public parking lot without an intent to shop." For crying out loud I had a local shop worker testify that we were waiting for sandwiches already paid for, and I still lost the "trial." So anybody that thinks you can go to an administrative adjunct tribunal and change the conclusions... Good luck.

Now the $45 dollar case had a trial that lasted 3 days. The judge issued like a 15 page opinion. The local cops actually cariied it with them in their cars for years.

Now in this decision the judge explicitly stated that the municipal code infraction was not "penal" in nature and that the "fine" was not intended to "punish" the convict.

So I will see if the local court house has this case still when I go up there next. But until then take a look at some Oregon Code and keep the above in mind. To all you in Oregon... I remember this being one of the hardest states to code crack. You guys got bent over by some crafty M----er F---kin lawyers.

Oregon Revised Statutes

131.005 General definitions

(11) “Probable cause” means that there is a substantial objective basis for believing that more likely than not an offense has been committed and a person to be arrested has committed it.(11) “Probable cause” means that there is a substantial objective basis for believing that more likely than not an offense has been committed and a person to be arrested has committed it.

(6) “Criminal action” means an action at law by means of which a person is accused of the commission of a violation, misdemeanor or felony.

(1) “Accusatory instrument” means a grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint.

801.370 “Operation.” “Operation” means any operation, towing, pushing, movement or otherwise propelling. [1983 c.338 §66] (Driving however is not defined... I am guessing it means something other then “operating.”

801.555 “Traffic offense.” “Traffic offense” means any of the following offenses:
(1) Any violation of a traffic ordinance of a city, municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, except ordinances governing parking of vehicles.
(2) Any provision of law for which a criminal or traffic violation penalty is provided in the vehicle code.
(3) Any provision of law for which a criminal or traffic violation penalty is provided in ORS chapter 825. [1983 c.338 §101; 1985 c.16 §27; 1999 c.1051 §84]

On top of all of this there is no "A violation of..." which should be before the word "Any" in both subsections 2 and 3. I wonder why they are reluctant to put "violation" down with the crimes which have penalties?

So I will try to dig up my research on FInes and Penalties. I do not beleive them to be the same thing. And I do not think one is exclusively inclusive of the other.

[ezrhythm]

I was sent this little gem from another site;

Some CANONS of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION to keep in mind.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the
exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an
absolute exclusion of all others. 11 Coke, 58b. BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 612.

EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind, class, or nature.
In statutory construction, the "ejusdem generis rule" is that
where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things. by
words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are
not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as
applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class
as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. Laws, 141; Cutshaw
v. Denver, 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22; Ex parte Leland, 1 Nott &
McC. (S. C.) 462; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40, 49 N. B. 993.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 415.

Noscitur a sociis. It is known from its associates. 1 Vent. 225. The
meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. 3
Term R. 87; Broom, Max. 588. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION,
pages 830.

In law what is OMITTED is usually done ON PURPOSE.

[Codee]

This is great!!! The codes in the previous post turn a violation into a "traffic offense (Word of art)" and then this code turns traffic offenses into violations. You got to love these screwballs. They sure get creative. This should also clear up any ideas that offenses and violations are the same thing. NOPE!!!

Originally Posted by Oregon Revised Statutes

153.008 Violations described. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an offense is a violation if any of the following apply:

(a) The offense is designated as a violation in the statute defining the offense.

(b) The statute prescribing the penalty for the offense provides that the offense is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The statute may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.

(c) The offense is created by an ordinance of a county, city, district or other political subdivision of this state with authority to create offenses, and the ordinance provides that violation of the ordinance is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The ordinance may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.

(d) The prosecuting attorney has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.566.

(e) The court has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.568.

(2) Conviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime. [1999 c.1051 §3]

Originally Posted by Oregon Revised Statutes

153.018 Schedule of penalties. (1) The penalty for committing a violation is a fine. The law creating a violation may impose other penalties in addition to a fine but may not impose a term of imprisonment.

So above we see that an offense has a penalty. And if that offense's penaly ACTUALLY is a fine, then IT IS NOT AN OFFENSE and it is a VIOLATION. VIolations have fines and offenses have combination of or other penalies.

Rember that traffic stops are arrests. Remember the definition fror "probable cause" that was in this code? It still cannot change the federal requirement for probable cause. Namely that the person has committed a CRIME. Do you still think that they have probable cause to pull you over for a traffic violation? And the later part clearly shows that a violation is not a "Crime" as well and more clearly shows that while offenses may be criminal and crimes, a violation is not.

In California I have evidence that a fine is not even a subcatagory of a "punishment." That was some good info.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind, class, or nature.
In statutory construction, the "ejusdem generis rule" is that
where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things. by
words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are
not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as
applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class
as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. Laws, 141; Cutshaw
v. Denver, 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22; Ex parte Leland, 1 Nott &
McC. (S. C.) 462; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40, 49 N. B. 993.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 415.

The one thing I do not like about this "cannon" is the part in red. Almost all codes list individual in the first itineratry. I still think the most direct evidense is in the fact that most of these codes utilize the term "natural person." I have never been told by any government source that an individual means an individual human being. Never heard it. THe assumption is for us to make and all too many of us make that assumption. There is no statutory reason for me to concider myself a statutory individual. Conversly I see lots of codified reasons why I think I am a natural person and not an individual.

ALL of these definitions can change from state to state and from code to code... So it is important that you use the statutory definitions and dictionaries ONLY when a definition is wanting in the statutes. Individual is almost never defined and so I can use a dictionary but don't because I prefer to show the definition for Natural person and then show that the code did not include it.

Now not every state uses "Natural Person" and the ordinary use of person is THOUGHT to include it. So natural person is only excluded when there is a listed definition for "Person" and "natural person is not in the list.

That last quote you posted however I REALLY LIKE. Thank you for posting. I wish you would post it in Shall Shall Shall though as that is going to be my thread for GENERAL CODE BREAKING. I really want to get off the Natural Person thing in this thread if we can.

Please by allmeans post it in Shall Shall Shall. I would greatly appreciate it. I want this thread to stay on course with statutes concerning driving. So please if you find Natural Person being used in a driving statute then it is very appropriate. But general discussion on statutory construction I would like posted in Shall Shall Shall.

[ezrhythm]

If a "Person" is a corporation, trust, etc., how are you a "Natural Person"?
Are you a "Natural Corporation, Natural Trust", etc.?
Only if you declare you are.

And on this note as sent to me;

Be aware that in California the WARRANTLESS ARREST
authority of a PEACE OFFICER (assuming one could find one) applies
when they have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe you have commited a PUBLIC
OFFENSE in their presence or a FELONY.

Of course what most people do NOT REALIZE is that PUBLIC OFFENSES
(like FELONIES) are SPECIFICLY DESIGNATED as such in both the PENAL
and VEHICLE CODES.

And PROBABLE CAUSE relates to CRIMES, which INFRACTIONS are NOT.

Now since we have ticket dismissals figured out it's time to work on these unlawful stops.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

If a "Person" is a corporation, trust, etc., how are you a "Natural Person"?
Are you a "Natural Corporation, Natural Trust", etc.?
Only if you declare you are.

And on this note as sent to me;

Be aware that in California the WARRANTLESS ARREST
authority of a PEACE OFFICER (assuming one could find one) applies
when they have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe you have commited a PUBLIC
OFFENSE in their presence or a FELONY.

Of course what most people do NOT REALIZE is that PUBLIC OFFENSES
(like FELONIES) are SPECIFICLY DESIGNATED as such in both the PENAL
and VEHICLE CODES.

And PROBABLE CAUSE relates to CRIMES, which INFRACTIONS are NOT.

Now since we have ticket dismissals figured out it's time to work on these unlawful stops.

Yes, this was the area I went into. Read this Case EZ... I thnik it is a good one.

WELSH v. WISCONSIN, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)

In relation to your question on how you can be a natural person when a person is a trust corporation partnership. etc...

You have made an assumption as to what person means. Person only means all of those fictions exclusively IF the code lists them. Other then that the term person when used in statutes is thought to include the natural person. The natural person is one that you are born with. A person is a tool and it is a good one.