10 votes

Explaining to a 10 Year Old the Prison a Mind Can Not See

This thread about registration relates to the picture below:

http://www.dailypaul.com/303372/how-are-any-rights-or-privil...

Image and video hosting by TinyPic




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

...

Your entitled your opinion. Please provide a bona fide claim.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

...

Vessel.
A ship, brig, sloop, or other craft used in navigation. The word is more comprehensive than "ship." [...]
- Black's Law Dictionary, 1st Ed.
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/V/v-1217.jpg

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Brain Fried Lunatic

see Daily Paul, poster above

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

...

CAPITIS DIMINUTIO. In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgement of personality. This was a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows:

Capitis diminutia maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Capitis diminutio media. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis dominutio minima. The lowest or at least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.1; 1,2,3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom Law, 144.

-Black's Law Dictionary, 1st Ed.

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/C/c-0171.jpg

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Those are legal concepts.

But what is your point?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

...

The point is we have a long way to go and I am not providing any apprenticeships. Let's just continue to define words first. We can talk about it once we are on the same page.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

yes

and that has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the idea that capitalizing a name means you are a corporation or any related nonsense thereto.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

And you have already been responded to later in this thread

that spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of voluntarily registering a person or property in a state which is a member of the United States.

Spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of who are the parties to a voluntary act of registration and what parts of the bundle of rights of ownership are surrendered to a state or the United States when a person or property is registered and placed under their protection.

Spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of a lack of a full and honest disclosure of the bundle(s) of rights for all parties to an act of registration.

Yet despite being already responded to several times you continue to bring up capitalization.

So your claim is that....

...by "registering" with the government a person is giving up various rights per a "capitis diminutio" of some degree? Okay, what does "registration" mean? How does one "register"?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

It seems to me

that something like "capitis diminutio" is not something analogous to registration but something more analogous to an exercise of authority changing ones status by an executive or judicial branch after something has been registered. I think a good example of a minor change in the status of a person is something like a license suspension.

I have no idea what registration means. I don't have anything registered and if any state which is a member of the United States who would be a potential party to a registration ever provides a full and honest disclosure to a potential registrant I will let you know what it means:

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 2nd Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 3rd Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 4th Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 5th Edition

Registrant. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e.g., a trademark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 6th Edition.

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 7th Edition.

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 8th Edition.

registrant. (1890) One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 9th Edition.

Okay

"I have no idea what registration means."

Then all of this is gibberish.

"spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of voluntarily registering a person or property in a state which is a member of the United States.

Spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of who are the parties to a voluntary act of registration and what parts of the bundle of rights of ownership are surrendered to a state or the United States when a person or property is registered and placed under their protection.

Spelling, grammar, and capitalization are forms which are insignificant to the substance of a lack of a full and honest disclosure of the bundle(s) of rights for all parties to an act of registration."

Thanks for clearing that up.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No problem.

How are any rights or privileges granted (and taken away) by law for registering things working out for you?

The argument that HAM can't refute

Here it is:
(1) There are approximately 7.1 billion human beings alive today
(2) HAM is one of them
(3) The first definition of "person" in Black's Law dictionary is "a human being."
(4) Therefore, since HAM is a human being, HAM is a person.

If anyone can interpret his comments as responsive to this argument in any way, let me know. The only thing he's said that sounds like it might be intended as a response, rather than as an evasion, is that because "human being" doesn't have an entry in wikipedia ("human being" redirects to "human") it must be controversial. Also, "human being" is two words and apparently complex grammar confuses him because he keeps asking to have it explained.

I was curious to see if there were other sov cits out there who could do a better job of disavowing their own personhood. If so I wasn't able to find one. The best argument I found, and I use the word "best" very loosely, and I also use the word "argument" very loosely, is that Black's Law Dictionary didn't define "human being," so therefore it has no legal meaning, so therefore you should just ignore it and pretend it's not there.

The really puzzling thing is that for what they're trying to accomplish, denying that they are persons and that they are human beings and so on doesn't help them at all. It's like some bizarre tangent that someone once embarked upon, and now every one of them follows that pheromone trail without thinking about the big picture of where they're trying to go. You might think that arguments which are more coherent would win out over arguments that require such drastic linguistic and logical contortions. But instead it seems that the *less* sense a theory makes, the more blatant the errors, the more likely a certain segment of the sov cit movement is to incorporate it into their zeitgeist.

Each generation of sov cit arguments is whackier than the last. Nobody says, hey, wait a minute, maybe replacing the word "includes" with the word "is" would change the meaning of a sentence. Nobody says, hey, wait a minute maybe the fact that "birth" and "berth" are homophones doesn't have any real legal significance after all. Nobody says, hey, wait a minute, maybe they're using words like "human being" in the ordinary everyday sense that any competent English speaker would readily understand. There's something morbidly fascinating about the whole movement, with people who find themselves in bad situations looking desperately for help and others preying on them. Maybe the most bizarre arguments win in the same way that male peacocks with the most impractical but showy tail feathers win. If you're going to fleece someone who is vulnerable you've got to get their attention.

It is utterly amazing how each generation of attorneys

becomes more dishonest than their predecessors.

Let's take several of Doggy's comments later in the thread:

"For example, to follow your line of thinking I'd have to imagine that the authors of Black's law dictionary used the phrase "human being" as the primary definition for "person" in spite of that phrase being highly controversial and fraught with complications from the linguistic to the metaphysical, and then they didn't bother trying to explain what they meant by that primary definition but just left it there to baffle and befuddle people like yourself, and that this useless definition has persisted in a widely-used reference work for more than a century."

I have provided definitions of the term person for every iteration of Black's Law Dictionary (except the 1st Edition) and Bouvier's Law Dictionary which is the law dictionary Black's is originally based upon. The history of the definition of person in legal dictionaries at no time originally relied upon the expression "human being." It is a modern phenomenon. It is essentially repeating a lie so many times that once enough people believe the lie you can gut a definition of its true meaning. The 1865 Bouvier's Law Dictionary actually used the expression "human being" in its definition but in no way near the context Doggy suggests.

In addition, it has been pointed out later in the thread in that same history of the definition of the term person the expression human being has not been relied upon for more than a century as the primary definition.

The fact that Doggy complains of logical inconsistencies is a joke because he is unable to remove any planks from his own eye yet insists there is a log in mine:

"Either that, or you would have to admit you were wrong when you claimed not to be a person. What you can't do, if logical consistency matters to you at all, is assert that you are not a person but that you are a human being""

"I'll answer it for you. According to Black's law dictionary, if you are a human being then you are by definition a person. In fact it's the first definition of "person.""

So what happens if you point out a logical contradiction to Doggy or ask him to define the expression human being or explain the grammar of it? He responds with drivel like this:

"So many words to avoid a simple conclusion"

"But you want to wrap that up in thousands of unnecessary words, presumably because saying you aren't a human being would sound so loony tunes. In reality, the loony tunes started when you denied being a person, and now you're just bumping up against the logical consequences of that earlier error."

"You want to move onto other questions that build on your earlier errors and obscure the logical contradictions"

At no time in this thread has Doggy answered any tough questions. He contradicts himself relying up sources that contradict his position. He claims corporations are not persons then relies upon sources which confirm they are. He then goes on to make a diversion out of an expression he can not define or explain the grammar of which appears in sources that contradict his own statements. He claims this definition using sources which contradict his own statements magically applies just because without any rhyme or reason. Then he claims I am the one who looks goofy.

He then goes on with his human being diversion and posts new comments in the thread as if his contradictions are some kind of gotcha. He wants to play a political game using an expression he can not define or explain the grammar of because he believes it has been repeated enough so as people believe it without question which is a game that lacks any merit of intellectual integrity.

"However, if you wish, you can maintain logical consistency at the expensive of looking goofy"

Is that the behavior of rational consciousness?

In addition to not answering the tough questions that have been posed several times, such as are all men persons or all persons men, I am certain Doggy does not want to discuss the parties of a voluntary registration that occurs in a state that is a member of the United States. He will never honestly discuss all the parties of an act of registration or any bundle of rights surrendered to a state or the United States to place a person or property under their protection.

BTW, only propaganda shills use the expression sovereign citizen. Intelligent people recognize the expression sovereign citizen is comprised of two terms which literally mean the opposite. I can see why a human being would be fond of using expressions that do not make sense.

It is the opinion of His American Majesty that Doggy and his person are guilty of hypocrisy. Notice, I did not state Doggy and him. I did not state Doggy. I did not state him. I stated Doggy and his person which means that his refers to Doggy in a masculine context and person is a thing belonging to Doggy. I could have stated Doggy and Doggy's person but I didn't have to because that is what pronouns are for.

...

[Citation needed]

Wikipedia is not a source.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Try explaining that

to HAM. HAM is the one who looked up "human being" in wikipedia, found that it redirected to "human" and then proceeded to try feign befuddlement over the fact that "human being" was not defined in wikipedia so it must be controversial, etc. I think he's new at the sov cit game.

...

Are you saying sovereign or citizen? Do you take your life seriously? Is it a game to you?

"Human" and "being" are separately defined.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Observe the behavior of animals ...

We know what many animals do when their territory is threatened and I would not be surprised if these animals behave similarly.

It is important to observe and classify the behavior of human beings who are incapable of more than anatomy and behavior. They might walk like you, talk like you, look like you, dress like you but they lack something.

Observed behaviors thus far:

1. They believe in the witchcraft of magical words.
2. The idols they worship wear black robes.
3. They rely upon sources as authorities which contradict their own statements.
4. They are fascinated with form over substance.
5. They are unable to answer follow-up questions when the answers could contradict their own statements.
6. They use terms or expressions they can not define.
7. They use expressions of terms they can not explain the grammar of.
8. They rely on ad hominem fallacies.
9. Their statements can not stand the test of time on the merits of the statement because they add or remove terms such as "7th Edition" once it is pointed out they are hypocrites.
10. They are dishonest because they make leaps of logic not supported by premesis such as "Therefore, since HAM is a human being, HAM is a person."

Is anatomy and behavior (ie. human) all that you are (ie. being)?
In the expression "Human Being" is human a noun, adjective, or verb?
In the expression "Human Being" is being a noun, adjective, or verb?
What constitutes a human being?

And what does your human being tangent have anything to do with:

Are all men humanity persons?
Are all persons men humanity?
It is logically possible for both answers to be yes?

Keep in mind according to you since corporations are not persons:

Are all men humanity persons?
Are all persons men humanity? Yes.

...

The black priests.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

The argument that HAM can't refute

Here it is:
(1) There are approximately 7.1 billion human beings alive today
(2) HAM is one of them
(3) The first definition of "person" in Black's Law dictionary is "a human being."
(4) Therefore, since HAM is a human being, HAM is a person.

Now look at his response below.

Doggydog claims to be a human being and also claims there are billions of them. I propose we create a wiki entry for the controversial, undefined expression "Human Being" ...

Now that's worthy of a grand guffaw. HAM thinks that "human being" is a controversial, undefined expression and his remedy? Create a wikipedia entry. HAM knows that "human being" is not a controversial term, and the lack of a wikipedia entry for it doesn't stop most of the English-speaking world from using the phrase "human being" without all the drama that he's trying so hard to attach to it.

and deem it one term in and of itself instead of two

HAM presumably thinks he means something by this. Your guess is as good as mine. Whatever he means, it's not something that keeps other English-speaking human beings from using the phrase without all the blather and befuddlement that HAM pretends to have over it.

to describe this lesser species of life that apparently exists, is only comprised of anatomy and behavior, and capable of being nothing more.

I have no idea where he came up with this. I wonder what he makes of it when the Dalai Lama says "We 7 billion human beings are all the same, emotionally, mentally and physically. We all want to live a happy and successful life and we all have a right to do so." Does he imagine that when the Dalai Lama uses the term "human being" he's advocating a materialistic view that human beings are nothing more than anatomy and behavior? When Kierkegaard said "Faith is the highest passion in a human being" did he mean that faith is the highest passion in lesser species comprising only anatomy and behavior? Does HAM realize just how nonsensical the things he says actually are?

He wrote a lot of other words to try to cover up the fact that he's dug himself into a deep hole of contradictory nonsense. But he can't refute the argument:

(1) There are approximately 7.1 billion human beings alive today
(2) HAM is one of them
(3) The first definition of "person" in Black's Law dictionary is "a human being."
(4) Therefore, since HAM is a human being, HAM is a person.

...

They are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. The fact that you are a human being does not mean you are a living being. I am a living man. When you respect yourself, You will respect me.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

the reason is he is corrupt

he's got to engage in bad, confusing reasoning to sell the idea that certain laws say the US is only a corporation. His strategy to do this involves the definition of person.

If he can do this, he and others can sell straw man/ sovereign citizen mumbo jumbo to people stupid enough to believe it.

either that or he's one of the dupes who bought it.

Corrupted by profit motive and intent to defraud, or corrupted by incompetence and stupidity? I don't know which.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It appears there are some animals that have figured out how

to use computers.

Doggydog claims to be a human being and also claims there are billions of them. I propose we create a wiki entry for the controversial, undefined expression "Human Being" and deem it one term in and of itself instead of two to describe this lesser species of life that apparently exists, is only comprised of anatomy and behavior, and capable of being nothing more.

Perhaps they ought to be domesticated like pets. When my dog shits on the floor in the house I spank it, I don't expect it to answer questions or respond to any argument of reason pooping on the floor in the house is not cool:

Is anatomy and behavior (ie. human) all that you are (ie. being)?
In the expression "Human Being" is human a noun, adjective, or verb?
In the expression "Human Being" is being a noun, adjective, or verb?
What constitutes a human being?

And what does your human being tangent have anything to do with:

Are all men humanity persons?
Are all persons men humanity?
It is logically possible for both answers to be yes?

Keep in mind according to you since corporations are not persons:

Are all men humanity persons?
Are all persons men humanity? Yes.

What lie would that be?

HAM (His American Majesty) says the argument below is a lie. HAM desperately wants to avoid the conclusion of this argument, that much is clear. But which premise is false? Or which step is not logically sound?

(1) There are approximately 7.1 billion human beings alive today.

(2) HAM is one of them.

(3) In Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed), the first definition of "person" is "a human being."

(4) Therefore, by that definition, since HAM is a human being, HAM is a person.

Discuss.

...

How about all the dead entities? Where do they fit in your logic?

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Hahahaha

It makes sense. HAM will roundly reject this! Just watch, HAM is busy cuing the gibberish bazooka to respond...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

RE: Corporations are not persons

"and the supreme court saying it's so doesn't make it so."

http://www.dailypaul.com/298897/explaining-to-a-10-year-old-...

However Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition must be true because this lesser life form is relying upon it so let's look at the definition in Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition:

"Person. 1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3. The living body of a human being ."

Obviously we can see why human beings are a lesser life form and only capable of anatomy and behavior and nothing more. Any life form capable of more than that, such as reason, would plainly see there is a logical problem if you claim your source is lying and true at the same time in the same exact definition.

Let us review the history of a definition of "person" across a broad spectrum of dictionaries again and this time including more sources:

Person. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society. --Bouvier Law Dictionary (1856)

Person. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes ... --Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914 p. 2574)

I don't have a copy of Black's Law 1st Edition ... someone feel free to post the definition from it.

Person. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv Inst no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised ... (definition goes on about artificial persons) --Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (1910 p. 895).

Person. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. People v. R Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N. E. 873. The term is however, more extensive than man. It may include artificial beings as corporations ... (definition goes on) --Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition (1933 p. 1355)

Person. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes ... (definition goes on)--Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1968 p. 1299)

Person. In general usage, a human being (ie. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers ... (definition goes on and is lengthy) -Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition (1979 p. 1028)

Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers ...(definition goes on) --Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition (1990 p. 1142).

Person. 1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3. The living body of a human being ... (with a long definition on types of persons). --Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition (1999 p. 1162).

Person. 1. A human being. — Also termed natural person ... (with a long definition on types of persons)--Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition (2004 p.3618)

Person. (Be) 1. A human being. Also termed natural person ... (with a long definition on types of persons) --Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition (2009 p. 1257)

Again, I don't expect animals to reason. Stop lying animal.

BTW, I dug up a torrent link for Black's Law Dictionaries if anyone doesn't have them and wants to take a look at these dictionaries using their own eyes who knows how to use a torrent client.

http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/8371713/Black_s_Law_Dictionar...

So...

You're a person then...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Is that a whimper?

Do you need a bath?
Do you need to be let out to potty?
Are you hungry?

Sit boy! Atta boy. Good job. Maybe I can dig up a treat for ya ...

And

If you're not careful, I'll bury you in the yard.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein