Comment: It is utterly amazing how each generation of attorneys

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The argument that HAM can't refute (see in situ)

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.