reply to post by erwalker
first of all, you claimed I cut & pasted the definition. Which you used as a condescending introduction, to somehow belittle the definition I
thoroughly laid out to verify a person is, in fact a fictitious artificial corporation.
To claim that you wrote anything is a stretch.
Are you serious? are you asserting I claimed I created the definition of a "person"?
As this is the case, then you have confused yourself. Its clear now why you can not grasp what is being said to you.
You and your misguided compatriots can argue that a person is a fictitious legal entity and not a human being all you want.
one again, by its very definition which I have posted above, that is what it is. Fictitious; having been fabricated.
Secondly, if a person can defined as be a natural person and a natural person is a human being with legal rights and obligations, then a
person can be defined as a human being, one with legal rights and obligations.
I will clarify again.
We are Homo sapiens, the modern day species of humans.
We are Human beings. We are natural to this planet.
We are male or female, man or woman. We have natural RIGHTS.
I have used legal terms to describe & define us without using the word "person" once & I know you understand exactly what I am talking about.
As per the Florida State regulations, as you have copied & pasted, the definition of a "Person" for the licensing requirement for the physical real
world operation of motor vehicle includes a Corporation.
(29) PERSON.--Any natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.
As I have pointed out before, A legal entity can NOT function in the real world. period.
We drive cars. Corporations do not. It can own the title of a vehicle. Another artificial construct.
so having been able to describe a natural human being with rights not using the word "person"..
and also pointing out the fact a natural man can unwittingly contact him or herself out of those natural god given rights legally.
I once again point out that there is no reason to include a corporation in the definition of a license to drive that which being a fictitious,
artificial intangible construct of a human beings mind, is absolutely impossible to do, drive a vehicle.
Corporations are granted PRIVILEGES under the laws which brought the artificial fictitious entity into legal existence.
you are claiming that a license to drive is a privilege. the RIGHT to travel is reserved for a natural human being.
A human can contract himself out of his RIGHTS into the state of being a PRIVILEGE.
as is clearly demonstrated by the very definition of a "person" that includes the impossible corporate motor vehicle operator, that a human
contracts himself into by signing the Florida State license forms with a signature.
a Human can be both a Legal & a Natural entity, thereby moving between the real and the artificial.
there is no other reason for including it in the verbiage other than to unknowingly coerce a human to do so.
it could read:a Natural Human being, a natural Homo Sapien, a natural Man or natural Woman.
These perfectly convey the Natural "person" meaning of a human that CAN operate a vehicle.
but it does not.
You on your body, you own your vehicle, you pay your taxes. You have unalienable rights to use the public grounds designated for right of passage. To
gather food, goods or entertainment to sustain you life. This is a fundamental right of law.
this is not to say we can all drive unregulated & are not responsible for our actions if we infringe upon another human being.. that is common sense &
also common law.
this is the difference between being a serf and being a sovereign free man with unalienable rights according to the Constitution.
so..once again, Bob Sholtz was correct & legally speaking when he said ..
sorry, but i'm not a "person" i'm a human being.
all of these statutes and acts apply to "persons" NOT "human beings"
Right to Drive
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile,
is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or
in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section
329, page 1135
and with that I'm done