are you a natural person or legal person when it comes to statutes and codes

[hope7134]

YouTube - THE CORPORATION [3/23] A Legal "Person"

legal person definition:In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

natural person: human being

when it comes to codes and statutes vs the Constitution knowing the difference makes an enormous difference.

[mrsat_98]

natural person: human being

Human = man like


Human Being = man like being... hey count me out I am not one.

[hope7134]

Human rights deals with the concepts of humanitarian intervention, self-determination, and providing relief to the wounded and other victims of armed conflicts and oppression. International human rights law is treaty based. These treaties are promulgated by international organizations such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the Council of Europe, and other organizations. One of tne of the purposes of the UN is "[t]o achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".

United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) UNESCO is a specialized agency of the UN. Its constitution was adopted by the London Conference in November 1945, and entered into effect on 4 November 1946. The main objective of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and communication in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and human rights and fundamental freedoms
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/human-rights/
__________________________________
Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin **** human being — more at homage
Date: 14th century
1of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2consisting of humans
3a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human — P. E. More>
— hu·man·ness\-mən-nəs\ noun

[noxagol]

human rights is a dangerous concept. It attempts to add positivism and separate a person from their actual, property based, rights. It is a socialistic ploy to undermine each person's self ownership and ownership of his or her property so that those in power may control everything.

The only rights are property rights.

[brandon]

Nah it really doesn't make any difference at all. If you try to argue based on this in court you will just be laughed at.

[angelatc]

human rights is a dangerous concept. It attempts to add positivism and separate a person from their actual, property based, rights. It is a socialistic ploy to undermine each person's self ownership and ownership of his or her property so that those in power may control everything.

The only rights are property rights.

This.

[hope7134]

The Constitution set up the federal government to regulate commerce between the states. So it can only regulate interstate commerce Constitutionally. The supreme court has ruled again and again, and has kept the Federal government in check to this area. So all acts of Congress define person as a legal person and not a natural person. They have no power over the natural person, as the natural person has rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Cour has not allowed the federal government to change those rights into benefit/privileges. However, since all America nationals have the right to give their consent to be governed, that is one of your protected rights, the supreme court will allow you to give your consent to be governed and will not interfer. You give your consent by your silence. You give your consent by not knowing the truth. You give your consent, even though the supreme court again and again has ruled for the protected rights of the natural person. It looks like the federal government has overstepped its boundaries, it has not. It regulates the corporate, commercial entity known as the legal person and according to the Constitution it has the right to govern commercial transactions and commercial entities nationally. But, if you are a human being you are not a commercial entity.
The supreme court will not interfer with commercial transactions and contracts between the federal government and commercial entities. Commerce is the jurisdiction and the "only jurisdiction" of the federal government. It has no jurisdiction over American nationals, who the supreme court has ruled are sovereign and that the protected rights of an american national shall not be infringed. If you don't know history and you don't know your rights, its nobody's fault but your own. The government is not your enemy, it is doing what it is required to do by the Constitution, govern commerce and commercial entities, but your protected rights are still in full force and effect. Know the truth and the truth will set you free.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/
Legal_entityLegal entity/person - Definition
A legal entity or artificial person is a legal construct with legal rights or duties such as the legal capacity to enter into contracts and sue or be sued. It is an entity -- usually an organization such as a corporation or a government -- ultimately composed of natural persons that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person, distinct from the natural persons of which it is composed; the "legal personality" of an artificial person, including its rights, duties, obligations and actions, is separate from any of the other artificial or natural persons which compose it. Thus, a legal liability of the legal entity is not necessarily a legal liability of any of its natural persons. For example, a properly executed contract in writing on behalf of a legal entity only affects the rights and duties of the legal entity; it does not affect the personal rights and duties of a natural person who executes the contract on behalf of the legal entity. However, a legal entity only operates in lieu of its natural persons. Thus, for example, a legal obligation involving a tort that a corporate officer incurs while acting in his capacity as an agent for the corporation may be an obligation both of the officer personally and of the corporation.

A legal entity exists wherever the law recognizes, as a matter of policy, the person of any entity, regardless of whether it is naturally considered to be a person. Thus, a legal person is distinguished from a natural person.

Legal entities are sometimes referred to by several other names such as "paper people" due to their legal status of having many of the same rights and obligations as natural persons.

There are some legal possibilities that are available only to natural persons, not to legal entities; for example a legal entity cannot marry, or be elected President.

Legal entities include:

associations
banks
collectives
cooperatives (co-ops)
corporations and hybrids like limited liability companies
estate
governmental institutions
municipalities
states
partnerships
political parties
political action committees (PACs)
unions
trust

[Mattsa]

Nah it really doesn't make any difference at all. If you try to argue based on this in court you will just be laughed at.

Yep

It's rather like fiat money. Fiat actually translates as FORCE

You are FORCED to use their paper money.

The legal system is the same really. It matters not one bit that you have natural inalienable rights because they'll just ignore you, fine you or throw you in jail anyway.

You can try and tell them that you are an American sovereign and not subject to civil legislation but they will just bully you into submission.

It's fun having a go though!

[hope7134]

Well, yes and no! Actually, I refused to go to court on a $362. Speeding ticket and a $295. Ticket. I wrote a letter to the court and asked how they planned on protecting my right to a fair trial when it was impossible because of a conflict of interest between me and the state. Reason being the judge, witness and the prosecutor were all state employees. I also asked them why I was given a fine, before being given a fair trial, as that violated by right to due process of law. I also asked them how they could provide me equal protection of the law when the state made the law and all the persons trying to enforce it worked for the state. I also asked them to show me where they received power to fine me, when I lived outside the cities and the counties and the states where these alleged violations occurred. And since I was outside their jurisdiction, they were demanding that I give up my rights so that they could have jurisdiction over me, which they did not currently possess. I reminded them, since I was a citizen from another state and this crossed state lines, (as they were trying to prosecute someone outside their jurisdiction), they would have to take these cases to federal court, if they would chose to pursue it. And lastly since, according to the above protected rights, I could not appear in court, as I had done nothing wrong, as there are no speeding laws, in the Bill of Rights, and if I appeared in court, I would be admitting guilt and would be giving them my consent to govern me and I would have to give up my rights to do that. So I reserved my rights and waived none, and waived all benefit/privileges (they were offering) as the Supreme Court had ruled that no government can take my protected rights and change them into a benefit/privilege. Both cases were dismissed.
I also saved my father’s house from foreclosure, as in civil matters over $20. He had a right to a jury trial and not a hearing before a judge, in a court of common law. Since no common law courts are currently established and the judge refused to remove the military flag (with the gold braid according to UCC), he had no jurisdiction according to common law, as that flag is a military flag according to UCC, and this was not a military case and no just cause existed for him to hear the case. I’m sure we haven’t heard the end of it, but the next time, it will be in front of a jury, and that is always better than the judge making rulings. (I wrote the judge about these things and that if he moved forward, he would be in violation of this oath of office as he would be denying due process of law, the right to a jury trial in matters over $20 in a common law court, the right to a fair trial and he would be creating a conflict of interest and would then be required to recuse himself.) The thing is since I wrote him, he can’t order us to court, because he would be violating his power, as the Constitution does not give him the power to order anyone to court.
I’m not trying to be a lawyer, nor am I lawyer, nor do I want to be a lawyer, nor am I giving anyone legal advise. I don’t know anything about the legal system at all. If I ever go to court in the legal system, I would definitely hire a lawyer. In the legal system, you can really mess yourself up without a lawyer. I try to stay in the LAWFUL SYSTEM, I never want to step foot into the legal system. It scares the crap out of me.
I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but they sure seem to scurry, when you start quoting them the Bill of Rights and you know how to use them. Or maybe it’s just me. I might just be lucky.
The traffic cases were nolle prossed, I didn't know what it meant the first time when I received the dismissal. I had to look it up. They refused to prosecute.

[hope7134]

courage, liberty and guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ed&v=HAOoEhFy_