It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legal Definition of Human Being is....a monster?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 


not "Radically deformed" but "resembling a lower animal in some way"




posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
As Defcon5 & Swingarm have been saying in this thread, it's exactly right: You waive your Sovereignty over the government by entering into CONTRACTS, even unknowingly & unwittingly, through the Birth Certificate, Social Security, any welfare & all other supposed "benefits" that they grant. However, people have been "opting out" legitimately by gaining remedy & recourse through UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203. "Remedy" is how to become immune to Statutory Law & "recourse" is how to be compensated from being damaged by Statutory Law.

What actually happens, legally speaking, is that we are born as human beings: At this point, we are Sovereigns holding political power over the government (State & Federal) & are beholden only to the government's obligations to uphold & protect your Natural Rights...In other words, you are subject only to Common Law as described under the US Constitution & your State Constitution. Basically speaking, as long as you do not violate the Rights of others, you can do any damn thing you please & you cannot be prosecuted under Statutory Law...You're still protected by Constitutional "due process."

When the Birth Certificate is filed, you become a "person," which is a government-created fictional entity.

The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Only this "person" can hold any kind of Office, which is also bound by Statutory Laws (such as the UCC) & receive government benefits, privileges: But it's also a "waiver of Natural Rights!" The government can regulate any conditions they want over this Office, regardless of Natural Rights: Which means basically that not only are you subject to obey the Constitutional limitations on behavior in your "Office of Person," you're also restricted by Statutory Law. The "office" you hold is a contractual obligation to obey Statutory Law in exchange for the "immunities, privileges & benefits" you receive from the State or federal governments..But you're also waiving your Sovereignty & Rights under Constitutional (Common) Law.

You are automatically a State Sovereign holding political power in the State which you were born (assuming that your parents were also Natural or Legal Citizens at the time you were born--There are a few other provisions for accounting the Citizen Status of your parents): Getting filed with Social Security also makes you a federal citizen, under the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was written only to provide citizenship to those people who didn't already have citizenship status (ie: the newly-freed slaves, for example): In short, if you were already a Citizen when the 14th Amendment was ratified, then the Amendment itself doesn't describe/categorize you. However, when you become a "person," that is a contract with the federal government that defines you as a 14th Amendment (federal) citizen. In short, you are BORN as a Sovereign holding political power over State & Federal governments, you become a "State person" with your Birth Certificate and then become a "federal person" with your Social Security card!

Opting out requires that you recognize the difference between the Sovereign You (ie: John Q. Public) & the government-created "person" (ie: JOHN Q. PUBLIC). You have to know how to use Statutory Laws of remedy & recourse in order to "dissolve" the fictional entity & regain your Sovereign Status: The main thrust of your remedy must rely on the fact that you did not enjoy "full disclosure" of the terms & conditions of those contracts & render them legally voided. For any contract to be upheld as valid, all parties must have full disclosure.

In all cases, treat the info skeptically & do the supplimentary research for yourself: I'm not a lawyer & I'm only posting general guidelines...You have to learn & apply the legal details yourself. Some of these links are merely descriptions of how other people have "opted out" & deal with the consequences (both positive & negative) of the "legal hassles" the government will try to get you to "enter into another contract" with them: Many of your "refusals to enter contract" are likely to be labeled as "civil disobedience."

Here are some other related threads that can provide more info & supporting links for research:
Know The Hidden Meanings Behind the Laws
Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court
Activist Group Considers 'Red-Light Cam' Lawsuits

Here are some other good links for more info...Some of them appear in posts from the linked threads:
Natural Person
Jailhouse Lawyer: Lots of good info--Check out the entries titled Person, State Citizenship & History of Corporate Rule
SuiJuris.net
About the Birth Certificate
An example Affidavit
The UCC Applied



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Good post Midnight. I just posted this today in another thread on freedoms in Canada. Thought I post it again.
You have accepted default benefits within statutes and in so doing have given up many of your rights within the bill of rights with your signature or by tacit agreement. You can however reclaim your rights, and through the right of contract decide which you want to participate in. Example, do you want to be the artificial person - Driver(motor vehicle act), Officer (cpp act), Worker(workers compensation act) etc ? These statutes redefine who you are. Under the Canadian bill of rights r.s.c 1985,c 44 ,"the right of the INDIVIDUAL extends to natural persons only, and not to corporations." Yet you will not see any mention of this individual with statutes unless they have redefined to suit the scam in their definition section of the statute. Start becoming aware of how statutes work and are constructed.

A quote from another ATS member
Posted by battleofbatoche

"Canada is run as an abandoned British Warship seized by the Rothschild's under Roman salvaging laws. This ship (citizenSHIP, townSHIP, recieverSHIP, leaderSHIP, etc) has been converted to a corporate vessel where everyone is undertaking a maritime voyage as an officer. The ship is insured or underwritten by the IMF so we pay income tax.

Then there are those who have become free-men-on-the-land through Section 39, 126 & 127 of the criminal code of Canada who use a Notice of Intent & Understanding followed by a Claim of Right who exist FREE of all gov't statues, by-laws, & codes provided they keep the peace and do not break the basic 10 commandments."
___________________________________________________________
And Remember...

A natural person has the right to contract because , upon our birth we are endowed with the gift of freewill, and the natural right to self determination. This natural right can be exercised with or without knowledge to enter into legally binding contracts, the responsibility and choice is yours.

Canadian Law dictionary Th ed pg 163

Contract- A contract is a legally recognized agreement between two or more persons, giving rise to obligations that may be enforced in the courts. By such agreements the parties not only restrict their present or future freedom to act , by the limitations imposed upon themselves by the agreement , they are creating a set of legal rules , binding as regards to themselves and only themselves

So .. the power you have is you can literally take control and deal under these private contracts., but if your unaware of your power you'll fall into the default benefit systems the Government has created.

Freedom of Contract Canadian Law Dictionary 5th ed pg 115

The ability of parties to agree to the most advantageous bargain between them without interference from the courts. In the eighteenth century there was little restriction placed on this freedom, the philosophy being that men could pursue their interests in the way they saw fit and that the duty of the law was merely to give effect to the intentions of the parties. This position still finds expression today.

So .. we have a powerful right to structure our life and our work relationships the way that we want.

Privity of Contract Canadian law dictionary 5th ed Page 220

The doctrine where by one can enforce contractual rights against another only if one was party to the contract. Under the general doctrine of privity of contract, no one who is not an original party to a contract is entitled to seek to enforce the terms of the contract or is bound by any of it provisions.

Some ways to exercise your rights - THE COMMON OPTION

- If you want you can voluntarily represent the taxpayer.

-Work for the taxpayer for the benefits of CPP (although there are many private pension plans that perform better).

-File an Income Tax Return for the taxpayer you represent.

-Learn the limited rights of the taxpayer.

-Obey every law applicable to the taxpayer.

-Just remember the taxpayer is an artificial person.

-It can't be hurt and has no feelings

-It's creator leaves it with only enough to survive.

-It's creator is more concerned about it's OWN survival

REMEMBER Your human rights don't apply to the taxpayer


The Forgotten Option

-To earn a living to sustain your life

-Exercises your "liberty" and present yourself as a natural person.

-Exchange your physical and intellectual "property" for compensation.

-Only choose benefits you are willing to pay the price for.

-Don't remain disadvantaged and let others choose for you.

-Become personally responsible and learn to exercise your rights.

-Never again let deception of man destroy your gift of freedom

Learn to live with respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law, so you can become healthy wealthy and wise.

Summary:

Default Contract of service

Relationship = Government servant (like Ronald Reagan once said" The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination")


ID required = Social insurance number

Payment = Taxable renumeration

Mandatory Benefit

Canadian pension plan = Officer (artificial person)

Employment insurance = Insured Person (artificial person)

Workers Compensation = Worker (atificial person)

You are one of two things,

Slaves living in the Illusion of freedom

OR

Free living in an Illusion of slavery

This thread is worth checking out also.www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 5-8-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 


blacks law dictionary has omitted that definition (human being) in the 8th edition. in contrast it does however define man kind as being feudal tenants = slaves. furthering that search i tried to look up homo-sapiens i did not find that to be defined but it did have a definition beside the word Homo. and that was also feudal tenant and also slave with it. its obvious that the law definitions of humans is not kind and views us as being sub servient or feudal. which pretty much sums it up. seeing as we look towards the law to protect us as we give it the fruits of our labor. but do we really need the law? yes. legal system? not at all.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I am a MAN not a colour of one.

apply this thought to Ballentines and the Roman history, or Jews who consider others less then men as do Masons

Consider much written above is about colours of law, titles etc

what is a Hue



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Is the process changing as fast as we learn?

UCC1, bc charge back, correcting records, reserving rights all seem simple but has not change much in the way of the arrogance of the unlawful law.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I believe that the definition of a monster as "An animal which has a conformation contrary to the order of nature." is an accurate statement. Consider the fact that the original sin of mankind is still being practiced to this very day by almost every human on the face of the earth in violation of Genesis 1:29 and it does not look like there will be any change in that situation in the near future. Mankind is the only animal that denies his creation as a large vegetarian primate. And, continues to consume the dead remains of animals even when doing so leads to basically most of the diseases that our species suffers from. There simply is no reference to the eating of any apple or fruit for that matter in the King James version of the christian bible. Check it out and while you are doing that ask yourself why it was so important to mention our dietary needs just after making reference to our "dominion" over all other animals? Why did the writer feel that it was necessary to use two easily understandable metaphors in regards to the thing the first humans were not supposed to consume? First, the phrase "fruit of the tree of life" is used, which is easily discerned to be a reference to life itself, as this is what it refers to each time it is used in Genesis. Second is the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which again is easily seen as a reference to the god of Genesis repeating that many thing were good, including the making of man as a pure vegetarian at Genesis 1:31.

So, I ask you, if everything the god of Genesis did was "good" including the making of man a vegetarian, then what would man have to do to know "evil" but to kill and eat the life that grew in the "midst" of the garden. Notice that the word is not "middle" of the garden, but in the midst of the garden, meaning throughout the garden. Not a single tree located in the approximate middle of that garden. This stuff is easy, mankind is the only actual monster living on this planet at this time. Man lives, "contrary to the order of nature." and then wonders why he suffers.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nygdan
monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.

No, this is certainly not "defining human beings as monsters".
In fact it does the exact opposite. It defines a "monster" for legal purposes, as a product of human birth which has so little real humanity that it cannot count as human for legal purposes- that is, specifically, having rights of inheritance.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join