MAN vs PERSON

THE INFORMER
Man Person
Natural Artificial
Created by God Created by man
Statutes never addresses man Statutes deal with artificial entities
A physical being A paper artificial not tangible

Government is a private corporation. Corporations are called persons. Both are artificial entities.

Artificial entities can only deal with other artificial entities.

In law, Statutes, Person is defined as an INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, A TRUST, ESTATE, PARTNERSHIP or COMPANY, all of which are defining an artificial entity. All, including individual to describe person, an artificial entity are in English Grammar, alike. Things of a kind, if you remember third grade English where they show you 5 articles and say which one does not fit. They are words of art and the government uses terms and not words to define person to fit their criminal actions.

They now say that natural person means a man. Oh really? That cannot be from looking at the above description of MAN and PERSON. Person is always, in law, an artificial entity. The fraud they pulled is outstanding.

Here is a law book that dispels all the other law books like Black's and even Ballentine's or any other Modern Law dictionary. Look in all the law dictionaries and you do see the definition of Man. Even in Bouvier's 1870 Dictionary the definition of Man on Vol 2, page 93, states; A human being. A person of the male sex. Isn't it interesting they use person, an artificial entity to describe man just like the other law books?

Further on in the definition there is some truth when they say, "It was considered in the civil or Roman law [here the Roman law is alive as civil law today] that although man and person are synonymous in GRAMMAR, they had a different acceptation in law. Now this is where they mix and match and people will then believe that man and person are one in the same. NOT SO.

This squares with the following law book which is NOT a dictionary so terms cannot come into play. I posted a part of this book under my PERSON article. It is Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. ( Albany Law School ), LL.D. ( Ruskin University ) from La Salle University .

Here is the truth laid out so well that it would take a moron to not see it when it says ; "Ortolan's explanation of personality.(45) The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan's treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise:

"The word 'person' (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man."

The States and the United States are pure private corporations from their inception and anyone can go on line to MANTA, type in the corporation block the state or IRS or any government agency you want and it will come up with every State, United States, the Senate; The IRS are all private corporations. You are and have been dealing with private corporations all your lives and have not known this due to the fraud they laid upon the people circa 1777 to present.

You see, they were private corporations of their limited membership which took on the artificial and they themselves operated as PERSONS, artificial entities. From the Law book this is stated on Character; "In another sense, very frequently employed, the word 'person' designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of 43 Slaves were not persons in the United States until after the abolition of slavery.

Read PERSON and you will see how they do this. Man can divest himself out of the physical being, stated in the LaSalle law book, and become a person in law. Remember this well, PERSON and MAN, in law are not the same and can never be.

How do they determine if they are dealing with a MAN or a man that has lost his physical being status for that of a PERSON with an artificial character? Simply do not use MAN in any statute, but use PERSON. Look at 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1) which defines person. It starts out with "The Term person does it not? You must read my article on TERMS NOT WORDS. So this is telling you that ordinary words are not employed to define person. The terms are capitalized
above in the third paragraph.

So in the IRC do they not say "ANY PERSON LIABLE"? Now how did you get to be a person and leave the status of MAN? Very simple. They said it was your duty to vote so everyone went down to register to vote. This is an easy one to understand. What you did was register yourself as an artificial entity-a person, to become an associate member of that Private Corporation to vote for members of the Board, (CONGRESS) and vote for the private corporate CEO known as the President. NOW you became that "INDIVIDUAL" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1). You are now a bonafide person who just gave up your God given natural Law rights as a MAN for "privileges and immunities" of a PERSON, never to get them back again. The other ways are more subtle. Yes, the Fraud they pulled on you is rampant to say the least.

Ok, here is the oxymoron they use on you to placate you. In many statutes, they say natural person and you believe them that he too is a taxpayer or subject to the statute. Let's look at this in slight depth. Look at the beginning and ask yourself, in law how can you merge two directly opposites to be one? How can you take a natural physical being, MAN and say he is a person, the artificial entity in Law? That's exactly what they are doing to you and you don't have the deductive reasoning to differentiate between that phrase Natural person and Natural man. If you did, no one would fall for it, but you did. How can you be a natural artificial (Natural person)? You can't be an artificial man for they would have to say that and they can't. It's an impossibility in law. "Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men." So states the law book on person. Artificial cannot have status, only character.

Ok, so how do they keep you straight and separate from the physical being never addressed in statute, man made law? Ask yourself this. Did God create a person or did he create MAN in his likeness? How would he create a person of General Motors or Food Lion in His likeness? So contrary to every lawyer that is behind this fraud, because lawyers wrote the statutes you the man of status are identified with, your given name written in Capital letters that makes you a person of character that lost your status of MAN. Oh yes, you are a physical being as you bleed BUT, you
are operating in the alter ego (character) they put you in. However, they know you are a bonafide person and not a physical being (Man), when they write your name in all Caps. That is simple logic of law for corporations have to write their names in all caps. Yes I know, you say prove it.

In Georgia, to register a business, the UCC section of the Secretary of State office says so and other states do also. This information was sent to me by a man living in Georgia when I asked to search for me what he found two years before writing this. I don't have it and can't find it in the tons, yes tons of paper documents I have. Do you have even a hundred pounds? Because that's how much is needed to sort all this fraud out that has been heaped on you year after year. Yes, many a patriot and lawyer will say, here we go again with cap letter idiots. But they are there to protect the corporation because MANTA says all the judiciaries are even private corporations and the UNITED STATES Corporation is not listed as their parent company and neither does the United States Post office have a parent corporation. That too is a totally separate private corporation.

The whole of this country is controlled by private corporations. And patriot myth, being what it is, would still believe the con job was a wonderful document because they think a Republican government is a wonderful body of men, of no corporate character, to protect us. Don't you believe that for one NY minute? The etymology of the word REPUBLICAN means CORPORATION. There is a Republic of China and there is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Georgia, so what makes the United States corporation (REPUBLIC) any different than these other countries? They are all private corporations. NOW, you know why the private Supreme Corporation Court in Texas v White stated " "For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican form of government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State, before it can determine whether it is republican or not." Texas v White 74 US 7 Wall, Lawyers Ed.

Congress controls their own private corporation, you don't and never will. That's why the Georgia Supreme court
stated in the Padleford case; "Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of government--the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live.

The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal - it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute. It wasn't us people, it was them people called WE, the People. Note the capitalization of the third word, In English grammar denoting a specific People, not you, the scum of the earth to get in their way. They say what they want you to believe that you are sovereign. You, are sovereign? Well why don't you fire them all if you are sovereign? They have got to keep the fraud (myth) going.

Continuing-- "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."

It's hard to explain, unless you have been exposed to it as long as I have, when the Padleford court said "no private person." That terminology is used to confuse the people. There is no "private person" as all are artificial beings and not private, one would assume. That is not the case for there are "public persons" (Congress) and "private persons" (you and me - slobs).

They should have used No private Man, but that would expose their system. The history books and courts are use to this fraud and use it well. It's their ball game.

Well what do you have to say now, Voters and members of the corporation? Now do you understand why the courts say don't you dare use the Constitution in my private corporate court, it has no place here, you US corporate citizen. They don't say that exactly otherwise you would know what they were doing. It's truly disgusting when I watched the feeding frenzy in all the elections where people were so hyped up waving flags to install the same corporate criminals back into their corporate offices, thinking they did something great.

As Spooner stated, not one of those criminals that will be installed in their private corporate offices, can ever represent any man let alone the majority, they only represent the Corporation not you.

Spooner said; "As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution. This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath "to support the Constitution," is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he
can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this."

"No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us. No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them: I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? That you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution or that, I have now broken any faith that I ever pledged to you? You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether. My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone!"
End of Spooner's talk

The Founding Fathers were just commercial barons of their time working a fraud to protect their holdings in this country as well as their multi-million dollar empire in those days and to hell with the common man, the dupe that he was and is. They all were business men just like the Morgan's, the Gate's, the Rockefellers, Warren Buffet, and the Firestones of today. Washington himself was with the Virginia Land Company selling real estate of the Crown and the East India Land Company back in 1750. So when you read all I posted on TERMS are NOT WORDS, to going after the wrong people, to Allegiance, to the whole of the writings will shed a different light I am sure.

You have been dealing as a corporation all these years subject to every tax and license they can foster on you, the member backing up the corporation cause all they can do is spend the corporation silly and you fell for it based on
myths created years and century before you were born into slavery, voluntary slavery at that; where the involuntary slavery laws do not protect you.

They, dear reader, are a RICO organization if ever there was one. Read 18 U.S.C. 1961 to 1963 and see how they fit like a glove when demanding from you every year protection money, forcing you to get licenses to travel, registering your property with them as a member that has no natural law rights, no rights to your land or house unless you pay them for the use of it, in their fraud to so called "protect your property "from other thieves that are in competition against them. Why you, dear PERSON, don't have the right to travel anymore, only the privilege to use their car (you think is
yours) and property through license because you are no longer a MAN or WOMAN anymore, just a corporate slave.

You all must love it, as you stay in the system, locked there as a person arguing as if you are a MAN or WOMAN. Yes, the truth hurts. And those slaves that continually vote, as Spooner said are just as much or more so at fault for the Conditions of America today. Aren't corporations the bane of mankind that you have heard of on and off from time to time? Why was it that black men didn't use the 14th Amendment until 1930?

Because it was designed for corporations of the time and they took advantage of it since 1869.

So what are you going to do about the situation once you have been exposed to the fraud? If you knew what I know, I would have to expand it in at least 500 pages, which you don't have the time to sit in front of the computer reading it all. Plus, it would be too big for me to send via the internet. There is little that can be done about the situation and those that keep trying to go against the system by trying to get around this will only get into trouble looking for a silver bullet that does not exist peacefully. That is why the right to keeps guns are attacked more and more so the people can't use them against the Corporate CEO's and Officers and board members.

The recent Heller case opinion, of the Private Judicial Corporate U.S. Supreme Court, they never ruled on the unfettered right to keep arms. What they did was say, yes it's a right provided you get our private corporate license to buy one and to carry one. Now, had the court said that it was a natural law right to buy and carry a gun without getting a permit, license, etc then that would be a genuine ruling for Freedom? But it was not, only enough to make people think they did a good job in protecting their absolute right to own a gun. So everyone would have to stop voting these criminals back into office, and see the con job for what it really is, an R.I.C.O operation document, not a document of Freedom, but one of slavery. How is a corporation destroyed is the question? That includes the state corporations as well as the U.S. corporations.

Can we all say, "Just Say NO? If no one bought from Wal-Mart how long would it be, before it went out of
business?

The Informer
July 4, 2008