Civil Law Jurisdiction... "Person" is not required. Only an INDIVIDUAL.

It's why Government gets twitchy when Pete asks if he is a Slave. ...and make no mistake, they KNOW that these things came from me. They do NOT want the word "individual" to appear.

Things will get pretty awkward when Pete asks if they think he's an INDIVIDUAL. :D

:-D

Read the words Pete uses VERY carefully.

He keeps asking if they think he is a SLAVE. He is waiting for the word INDIVIDUAL to come up.

There's no definition here, nor Duhaimes... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/individual

The LAW SOCIETY'S definition of INDIVIDUAL is something I want people to do actual legwork for. It's one of the most important things I teach.When people read those words, staring them right in the face...and it's something they see THEMSELVES and not so post on the internet, it really hits home. Erich read it at age 21. it changed him for life.

Legwork for sure....it is at least slightly hidden. It isn't in the definitions in the Mass General Laws, although used seemingly regularly. It's used in the Mass Constitution as well....this may require an email. :-D

You can find it, and even post it...it won't stay up for more than a month. it never does. They literally throw MILLIONS at stopping it.

ok...I am looking! :-D

There is this, but I think the online version is the 2nd ed.: http://thelawdictionary.org/individual/

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words �person�, �human being�, �child�, and �individual�, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term �born alive�, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being �born alive� as defined in this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

:-O

NONE OF THIS IS HIDDEN (And Cornell Law CENSORS)!

I've read this before, but that was B.S. (before Scott...thats how I measure time these days. :D )

It says right there...NO RIGHTS.

I have a sinking feeling in my throat after reading this. :/

:D QRA: Are you an INDIVIDUAL ? Me: Do I look like an ORGANIZED �unit� ? :D

Notice that UNLIKE Menard, I don't lie about words and omit stuff. I'm still the ONLY one in the ONLY one who ACTUALLY tells the truth. Let that sink in. I AM A UNIQUE case. The law society can fight you, but not me. You cannot tell the truth if you don't know what the truth IS. They made me. The truth comes with that process. Pass on what I show you. I am not the knowledge, nor am I the source. YOU ARE. These past few years I've shown you: WHAT the truth is. WHAT is responsible for it. You have the means of getting the truth: WHAT do you do about it? In 2016 we will show you. It won't just be me, either! Several of my captains will be joining us! It seems our humble little group has inspired more than I had first anticipated! Remember: I'm the distraction to keep those very same captains hidden! Some want to be part of the distraction. Who am I to argue? ...wait. I'm the Admiral. That's my DEFINED RIGHT! :D

In Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law, no definition of individual. However there is one of Individualism. It states see Income Tax. Under income tax it states that individuals are liable in principle to pay income tax

INDIVIDUAL .....its VALUE can be measured....same as a SLAVE :D

Bart...do you have an interpretations page?

Bart Foley, look at the INTERPRETATIONS ACT/SECTION. ALL Acts/Codes/Statutes have them. ALWAYS LOOK FOR THE DEFINITION IN THE ACT/CODE/STATUTE ITSELF, FIRST! Then the "Governing Acts". Then the LEGAL definition. It's there somewhere, but always start with the ACT/CODE/STATUTE, itself, because THAT definition, trumps the rest.

Nope, the word INDIVUDUAL is not even mentionned in the Civil Code of Quebec.

Perfect Scott. I will.

Only in the Law Society in QUEBEC will you find "individual".

I find it funny that the QRA agent who dared asked me if I was an individual doesn't work with the QRA anymore.....

Of course, the day after, I have sent a DEMAND to the revenu minister to fire that bitch.... :P

It just might be a coincidence though.... :/

Funny, here is the definition from Mass General Laws, chapter 90, the Motor Vehicle Act: "Persons'', wherever used in connection with the registration of a motor vehicle, all persons who own or control such vehicles as owners, or for the purpose of sale, or for renting, as agents, salesmen or otherwise. So, I go to MGL ch 4, the Definitions page and there is this: Twenty-third, "Person'' or "whoever'' shall include corporations, societies, associations and partnerships. No mention of INDIVIDUAL, but when I brought up all of this during my trials, they weren't pleased....so displeased, that their answer was to lock me in a cage.

So it doesn't apply to "individuals".

Look in the acts governing the act you are reading next.

Then look at your state's INTERPRETATIONS ACT. just move up the chain to find the word. :D

nope...it appears to apply to "corporations, societies, associations and partnerships." A JUSTICE literally told me that I, a man, am within the definition but wouldn't tell me how that was construed....

When they do that, your response should be: "UNACCEPTABLE! I demand proof of this ASSERTION" <---read carefully, and look at the capitalized words.

"acts governing the acts i am reading". I thought that would be the interpretations of Massachusetts. :/

The interpretation Act 2005, 18c has the definition of persons as importing a body corporate (whether corporation aggregate or corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an Individual...Think that's it?

I should think so. It has all the ingredients!