Sovereign or Person

Based on Sovereign or Person

The issue of 'person' is of primary importance since under color of authority [unconstitutional regardless of the target populace] statutes and laws are made to affect 'person[s,'] not 'citizen' or 'sovereign.' The sovereign is the highest authority and is supreme to all other law except the laws of the Creator. The basic premise that no government made by man has the actual and real authority to make and impose laws on the sovereign which conflict with his unalienable rights has been well supported so far. It has additionally been supported that the only responsibility of the individual - the sovereign - is that he must not interfere with the rights of his fellow people. Therefore, barring any damage to another's rights and property, the sovereign is free to exercise his rights as he see fit. But, what of this 'person' to which so many laws apply? Who and what is a 'person'? Are you a 'person' in the eyes of the law? It is a well-founded principle of law that a statute must state exactly what it means and mean exactly what it states. "When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction - that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there - is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 117, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992] And, this decision which clearly means that any vagueness is in violation of due process and, therefore, statutes must be written clearly so that the men and women of common intelligence all derive the same meaning.

"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 It is also well founded that any term used is taken as used in its ordinary sense since it is the sovereign citizen who reads and interprets law. Thus, any technical term - or a term with several meanings - must be clearly defined within the law or the section of the regulatory document the law is part of. Thus, we find this statute in Missouri Revised Statutes [RSMo] that clearly demands that technical or meanings from the ordinary meanings [peculiar] are understood according to their technical import. "Words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense, but technical words and phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be understood according to their technical import." RSMo Chapter 1, Section 1.090 In everyday common use we use the word 'person' to mean a natural born man or woman. However, in law there are many different meanings peculiar to this term. Because the word has many different meanings in law, it must be treated as a technical term or having technical import with its meaning clearly defined in the section or statute being read.

The most common definition of 'person' given in statutes is that 'person' is construed to include an individual, a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, a company or corporation, or some derivation of this definition. Thus, person may have varying definitions in law that are not necessarily the common use meaning. Therefore, we must ask exactly what is a 'legal person' since one of the terms used by governments and courts in our country is 'legal person.'

legal person: a body of persons or an entity [as a corporation] considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. - Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of Law. [1996.] [Note: Legal person is not a natural person but has many of the same rights, etcetera, as a natural person in the eyes of the law.]

Person. 1. A human being [a 'natural' person.] 2. A corporation [an 'artificial' person.] Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word 'person' includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other 'being' entitled to sue as a legal entity [a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc..] 4. The plural of person is persons, not people [see that word.] Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999.

Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are 'persons' in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to 'persons' which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Note: Webster's treats 'person' as a created persona or false identity. This goes along with the 1996 dictionary in that it treats a legal person as a natural person for purposes of suits, etc.]

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, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. 2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Revised 6th Edition

Is it possible, then, that 'legal person' is actually a legal fiction that is subject to government administrative laws and does not apply to the sovereign individual? If 'person' does apply to the sovereign, then 'person' must be defined as the sovereign or the 'sovereign' as the person. Remember we are talking of legal terminology, not common everyday meanings.

How does the United States Code [USC] define a 'United States person'? This is found in Title 26 [USC 26,] Subtitle F, Chapter 79, Section 7701[a,] one of the few times 'person' and 'United States person' are defined:

[1] Person. The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.'

And, in Section 7701[a][30,] defining United States person:

[30] United States person The term ''United States person'' means -

[A] a citizen or resident of the United States,

[B] a domestic partnership,

[C] a domestic corporation, [D] any estate [other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph [31,] and -

[E] any trust if - [then requirements for establishing US control over the trust]

One might think that since 'individual' can mean a 'person' in law that the sovereign - since he is an individual - is therefore a 'person' in law. But, 'individual' also as various meanings in law, including a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, or a company or corporation.

Individual 1a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate:' American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000.

Entity - '1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.' [Am. Her. Dict., supra] Thus, an individual may be a natural born human being but it may also refer to a corporation, an estate, or some other government created 'entity' known as a 'person' in law. Because it may refer to other than a natural born human, then definition of 'individual' must be provided for clarity, just as the definition for 'person' must be provided. Both have technical import. Besides, one can look long and hard - and fruitlessly - to find a law, regulation, or statute that specifically uses 'individual' or 'Citizen' in a specific law and specifying application of the law, such as 'The individual will...' or 'The Citizen is required...' It would seem the term is too ambiguous to use even by Bar attorneys writing the laws. Or, they knew when writing the laws such use would be contrary to the Constitution and, therefore, unlawful. The intent with this is to mislead and get voluntary - or forced -compliance by the People who have not been fully informed. Logically, a natural man or woman is not the same as the individual in the above definition of 'person' since corporations and other government-privileged entities can be taxed but the individual [natural man] cannot. Government privileged entities are corporations, franchises, associations, trusts [if supervised by the government,] government granted partnerships, government created 'persons' as individuals, and other government granted associations. This is clear in this excerpt from the below decision and supports that 'individual' may be used to indicate a natural born citizen as being separate from meanings including corporations: "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930]

Let's use a bit of logic here. No level of government may make any law repugnant to the Constitution. But, yet, every level of government makes laws applying to 'persons.' We have found that 'persons' may be natural people or entities created by man, including the government itself. 'Person' may also be an individual while an 'individual' may be naturally created by our Maker; created by man [as in man creating governments;] or created by corporate governments as a corporate government created entity. Since no level of government may make laws infringing upon the natural unalienable rights of people born in the 50 States, then it is logical the 'person' named in law cannot be a natural man who is an individual - it MUST refer only to corporate government created entities or 'persons.' Thus, the premise must be a 'legal' person is a legal fiction in laws and not applicable to the natural person, citizen, sovereign, or individual man or woman born naturally within one of the many States. Does this premise hold true? Is it permissible to use 'person' to allow a statute/law to be applied to a citizen of the United States of America, the sovereign? This has come up many times in the past: "And The Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government." United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 [1941] "It would require clear and unequivocal statutory language to persuade me that Congress intended to grant a remedy to all except one of those who were injured by trust prices - the 'all' including every natural and artificial person, every corporation and association,1 foreign and domestic..." [Mr. Justice Black, dissenting, US v Cooper...]

"Since in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315, "There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. And - "The Act does not define 'persons.' In common usage that term does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 [1947] "[I]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [1941;] accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 1947.] "Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 [1840.]" Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 [1979] Then, there is this case. In Will v Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 2nd 45 [1988,] the issue of using the word 'person' in statutes/laws again came up, this time in a deprivation of rights case based on 42 USC, Section 1983. The question was whether the word 'person' in the USC section could mean the State of Michigan. The original case was dismissed by the trial court, which stated that the term 'person' did not include the sovereign State of Michigan. The Michigan Appellate Court upheld the trial court, and the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court. Will then filed a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court, and the court again made it perfectly clear both that the term 'person' does not include the sovereign and that in order for the sovereign to be bound by the statute, the sovereign must be 'specifically' named. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 [1989] Why the focus on Will v. Michigan? Read the below 'special added information' very carefully. Pay particularly to what entity is being treated as the sovereign.

SPECIAL ADDED INFORMATION CONCERNING OFFICIAL IMMUNITY

Note: If one cares to see why courts are not to interpret law or the Constitution, read the decision in 'Will v Michigan ...' It would be difficult to encounter more screwed up thinking than in this decision, a decision made to protect the State from suits made by people against the State and based on 42 USC, Section 1983. Also, read the decisions in which there is strong disagreement with Justice White and the court. Include in your reading Owen v City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 [1980,] Paragraph [a,] Pp 635-636 which states that the language in 42 USC, Section 1983 '...is absolute and unqualified, and no mention is made of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that may be asserted. Rather, the statute imposes liability upon 'every person'...who under color of law or custom, 'subjects, or causes to be subjected...to the deprivation of rights...' Now to an excerpt from the Will case: "Moreover, we disagree with JUSTICE BRENNAN that at the time the Dictionary Act was passed "the phrase 'bodies politic and corporate' was understood to include the States.' Post, at 78. Rather, an examination of authorities of the era suggests that the phrase was used to mean corporations, both private and public [municipal,] and not to include the States." But it does not follow that if municipalities are persons then so are States. States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not, Monell, 436 U.S., at 690, n. 54, and we consequently limited our holding in Monell "to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes," [Justice White, Will..., supra]

[NOTE: See definition of Bodies Politic below.]

The fact is that justices either do not understand the 11th Amendment and, in many instances, have used it erroneously - or through a false or misleading interpretation, have attempted to provide state governments' and the people making them up immunity to claims made against them. The below is the language used in the 11th Amendment. Please determine how it gives a state government and officials immunity to lawsuits for violations of rights or any other violation. If you cannot understand the language used, then neither can the justices of the Supreme Court. If the amendment is that ambiguous, then the amendment must be repealed for vagueness. "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Doesn't the amendment merely prohibit the judicial power [jurisdiction] of the United States in any suit in law or equity started by a citizen of one state or a foreign state against a State? Doesn't the 11th Amendment in fact limit the judicial power of the United States when a citizen of one state or a foreign State sues a state? In other words, such cases are deemed to NOT be under federal jurisdiction. Is it not clear then that the 11th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with providing official immunity of any state government or any official therein from being sued by a Citizen of the State?

Jurisdiction lies with the state when a Citizen sues the state. State governments and the officials making up the government cannot be made immune to lawsuits for violations of rights and other criminal activities. The truth is that administrative laws give people the foundation for suits and the filing of criminal complaints against offending officials. [See Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 - and others dealing with fraud, extortion, mail fraud, theft, and racketeering - and Title 42, Sections 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986]

Rights, including the right to sue for damages done against the sovereign, reign supreme over any level of government. The right to sue any individual or corporation [persons] - even if a government or agent of the government - SHOULD and must remain supreme whether judges, attorneys in and/or advising the government, and government officials like it or not. Interpreting or enforcing that officials have immunity renders the Oath of Office all officials must subscribe to meaningless. Furthermore, any action giving any person or organization immunity effectively voids the Constitution and the Bill of Rights reflected in the first ten amendments, along with voiding all of God's laws.

Official immunity to laws would place us in a quandary. If officials are exempted from the supreme Law of the Land because of being an official in government, then are they not outside the supreme Law of the Land? Does this not mean that they are NOT constitutional Citizens and are therefore agents of a government foreign to that established by the Constitution? This is tough to understand but in the case of Justice White's thinking - and all others who protect officials at every level - the state [as a government] is being treated as something separate to the People. This is a gross misinterpretation. The state is the People [A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language - American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000.] But we do have what is called the state government. The state government, however, is a bunch of people who are citizens of the state given the honored [once upon a time] task of protecting the rights of each man, woman, and child who make up the State. Never mind for now that few people in such governing bodies [bodies politic and corporations] are 'honorable.' If it is a separate organization, such as the US Government being a corporation independent of the state with its employees being franchises of the corporation, then so also must state governments be considered and treated as a corporation independent of the People. And, it is. As such, it or any of its agents may be sued as an entity - a person - by the People or charged by the People for criminal activities or damages to them. This applies to every corporation as all are classed as 'persons' [entities not of natural creation] in law contrary to Justice White's thinking. Thus, either government officials are still Citizens of one of the many States and subject to the Constitution uniting the States, the applicable State constitution, and the laws governing the administration of governments or they are non-citizens [government created franchises] without the protection of the Constitution. Either way, there is no immunity from charges being made against them or from lawsuits by the People.

See also - Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, [1958] - below.

Anyway, the above definitions and case cites are used to show 'persons' can be either natural or artificial entities. This is most important for the people and the officials who represent the people of Missouri to understand. Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, section 1.020, deals with the definitions to be used in the construction of statutes/ordinances. These definitions apply to ALL Missouri lawmaking.

This section is in full compliance with the above Supreme Court rulings when Section 1.020[11] RSMo] defines PERSON as:

[11] The word 'person' may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations.'

This definition that must be used in all Missouri statutes/ordinances does NOT include, extend, or applied to 'sovereign' or 'citizen.' It does, however, use the term 'bodies politic.'

Bodies Politic

This is treated as an individual subdivision since 'bodies politic' can be an extremely misleading term. It is used by Missouri legislatures with the assumption made by the people that it means all the people 'as individuals' rather than the people forming the body politic as a single whole. I.e., each man, woman, or child is NOT a 'body politic' with the inclusion of all people indicated by 'bodies politic.' Normally, the body politic is thought of as: "The people of a politically organized nation or state considered as a group." The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000; Bouvier's Law Dictionary; and others] We must consider the concept of 'body politic' very carefully as it is extremely misleading and misunderstood by the majority of people. First, what is a 'body'? Going back a bit in history, 'A Dictionary of Law - 1893, A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence' defines 'body' thusly:

Body. Compare Corpus. The physical person. The natural body or such as is formed by the laws of God, as distinguished from an artificial body or such as is devised by human laws. 1 Bl. Com. 467.

Artificial body. A number of individuals considered collectively, usually organized for a common purpose: as, a legislative body. An artificial body or that devised by human laws. 1 Bl. Com. 467. An artificial body can do only what is authorized by its charter or by law; a natural person or body, whatever is not forbidden by law. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 177 [1868.]' Then, from Bouvier's Law Dictionary:

Body. A person [See above definition for Bouvier's definition of 'person']

Thus, in law, a body was considered on a physical person - a natural person formed by the laws of God - and distinguished it from an 'artificial body,' specifying that an artificial body is devised by human laws. And, as such, it can only do what is authorized by its charter or by law. Then, from Bouvier's of 1856, the definition of BODY POLITIC is:

1. government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state. 2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state. 3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person. Thus, in 1856, the 'body politic' was government and other corporations since governments are established as corporations. Putting this into perspective, originally the 'body politic' is not the individual people living in a state, except when considered as a political unit - the whole. This has not changed. 'Body politic' does not refer to the individual human being who is naturally created by birth as a Citizen [See [2] immediately above] but is instead the whole of the people making up the government or a government created entity. This makes sense in that politic indicates a political action; therefore, the body is formed by acts of man and are not natural creations - they are artificial 'persons.' In other words, God did not say 'And let there be the state of Missouri.' And, Lo and Behold, the state of Missouri was created. Instead, God created Man and then Man created the political body [body politic] known as the State of Missouri. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary [1913] goes along with this when it defines 'body politic' as 'of or pertaining to civil government; political; as, the body politic.' It further clarifies with this:

"A number of individuals spoken of collectively, usually as united by some common tie, or as organized for some purpose; a collective whole or totality; a corporation; as, a legislative body; a clerical body."

The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000, fully supporting the above analysis defines body as:

"3a. A human; a person. b. A group of individuals regarded as an entity; a corporation." To put this in as simple of terms as possible, a 'body politic' is nothing more than an entity created by Man through political means. It never ever refers to the individual sovereign Citizen who is a 'natural body' or natural person. The individual humans or natural 'bodies' can band together and create a political and artificial 'body' given the task of protecting the rights of the individual. The unit thus formed is the 'state' with an artificial body known as a state's government, an artificial person known as corporation. Thus, all 'bodies politic' refer to artificial persons and never to natural individual people. This means all laws made by the 'body politic' can be applied only to any and all artificially created bodies but not to natural bodies who live in accordance with God's laws and under the common law of non-interference with the rights of other natural bodies.

Now review the provision of Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, section 1.020 and remember that the definitions in this section refer to the construction of all statutes/ordinances in the state of Missouri, or, in other words, to all lawmaking regardless of level. "[11] The word 'person' may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations." The Supreme Court has shown above that 'person' does not and cannot apply to the sovereign when used in statutes. The sovereign is above any artificially created entity. Therefore, the word 'person' can only be applied to artificially created entities or 'bodies politic,' whether corporate, partnerships, or other unincorporated associations. Note though, that the sovereign can form associations outside any government permission. We have the right to develop any associations we wish and do not need government 'permission' to do so. Thus, it is highly probable that the phrase 'other unincorporated associations' is unconstitutional.

Therefore, because 'person' has many different definitions and body [or bodies] politic is specific to artificially created bodies or persons - and never includes the sovereign - laws, rules, and the like cannot be applied to the sovereign unless the sovereign is specifically named. Recall these decisions: "Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 [1886]

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ..." Rodriques v Ray Donavan [U.S. Department of Labor,] 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 [1985] The Supreme Court cases above have never been overturned. It is well founded that the decisions made by the US Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts unless they are overturned. "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery ... " United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. This has not happened to date and, thus, the decision in Yick Wo, and the numerous decisions from other cases, stand and reflect natural rights whether secured by the Constitution or not.

If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases ... " Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398 And this excerpt from the case of Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, [1958]:

"A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no [358 U.S. 1, 17] other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, ... denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339,347." "Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action, see Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U.S. 230; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken, see Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F.2d 922; Department of Conservation and Development v. Tate, 231 F.2d 615." And also from the Cooper case: "Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, 'to support this Constitution.' Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' 'anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State ..." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.' [Quote copied from Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958] Thus, the sovereign people reign sovereign over the government of states [including political subdivisions] and the United States while states retain sovereignty over and independent of all other states and the United States. That past and perhaps present justices of the Supreme Court do not understand who or what is the sovereign does not take away from the fact that - in this country - the people are the sovereign.

This means, People, that you as natural men and women are supreme over city, county, state, and the United States governments. So, act like it. Just as serfs could not make laws affecting kings, nor can governments who are made by the people and in servitude to the people make laws affecting the sovereign people.