SO, IF YOUR NOT A “PERSON” YOU MUST BE A “HUMAN BEING” RIGHT? To Be or Not to Be a Human Being?

Sva cviqve person “Each has their own mask”

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster’. From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'

This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-definitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: 'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines." And "' secularism' n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the *English Language, 1928. 'humanitarian' is defined: n. 'a philanthropist: an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist.: From the above Random House Dictionary, "humanitarianism' is defined: n. 'the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.'

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellin Koff’s Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines 'Person' as, 1."a human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, and morality common to human beings, with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal too much. Again, in Shawmut Bank, N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610A.2d652,654) it states, "For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or juristic person".

So, if “natural person” and “human being” are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institutes’:... "we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons; for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations,"... (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, " 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate." From the same Dictionary, page 1461, " 'unregenerate' 1. not regenerate; unrepentant. 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 3. wicked; sinful; dissolute. 4. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as: 'a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world, and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.' and 'naturalist' is defined as: 'One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.'

And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at 1 Corinthians 3:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a 'human being', they are saying, "I'm an animal; I'm non-religious; I'm unrepentant: I'm wicked, sinful and dissolute; I'm able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I'm subject to man's law, rather than God's Law."

Critically, definitions of a “person” do not include a “sovereign”, and therefore no type of “person” can be one of the sovereign people of any freely constituted nation.

Human Being. Monster. A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to any land. Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1930.

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 Dictionary, 1828.

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, 3rd Edition, 2000.

“Person” means … an individual, a firm, a partnership, an association, a fiduciary, an executor or administrator, a governmental entity, a limited liability company, or a corporation. Indiana Code, Title 9, Motor Vehicles, Article 13, General Provisions and Definitions, Chapter 2, Definitions IC 9-13-2-124, Person, Section 124 Subsection a.

“Person” means any individual (whether or not a citizen of the United States), any corporation, partnership, association, or other entity organized or existing under the laws of any nation, and any Federal, State, local or foreign government or any entity of any such government.

42 USC § 9102(14)

"Person" includes individuals, firms, companies, business trusts, estates, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, corporations, and any other business entities.

Ohio Revised Code Section 5701.01

"Person" means any person, partnership, joint-stock company, unincorporated association, society, municipal corporation, or other corporation.

Ohio Revised Code § 2721.01 (2024)

“Person” means a natural person. The statutory definition of “person”, which includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association. The context in which “person” is used throughout, it is clear that only “individual” was intended to be included, excluding all other terms within the definition of “person”.

Ohio Revised Code 1347.15

“Person” When used in this Act- (3) The term person means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.” With the Birth Certificate being converted sequestered to a legal person, the NAME is a deceased Estate Trust, which is why the definition for the term “person” in the bankrupt United States Social Security Act 1935, includes “trust or estate”.

Social Security Act 1935 DEFINITIONS SECTION 1101

Natural Person. A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition

Natural Person. A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person. Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

Artificial Person. A nonhuman entity that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties. Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

A legally generated “artificial person” has no substance, no body, no brain, no consciousness, no heart, no energy, no spirit, no soul. It is a mere legal “persona” in the fictional “theatre of commerce”, which is prescribed imaginary “roles” played by “actors” giving a “performance”.

Juridical Person. Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. Also refer to body corporate. Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

The term “person” does not include the sovereign. Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)

“The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign….”

People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795)

SURNAME A name, which is added to the Christian name, they are called surnames, because originally, they were written over the name in judicial writings and contracts. They were and are still used for the purpose of distinguishing persons.

There is no legal prohibition on using multiple names (simultaneously or sequentially) you are free to do so.

There is no requirement for parents to give their own surname to their children, they can choose something completely different if they wish.

But there’s still no law restricting a person’s liberty (in the case of an adult, at least) to change their surname at any time they choose, and it’s of course still a common practice for people to do so.

The doctrine that your legal name is the name you are called and known by has a basis in ancient times. Henry de Bracton wrote in his De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ (c. 1235), on folio 188b

There is no need to get any kind of permission or authority (such as an Act of Parliament or Royal License) to change your surname — as was held by Sir Joseph Jekyll in Barlow v Bateman (1730)

The mere assumption of a name, which is the patronymic of a family, by a Stranger who had never before been called by that name, whatever cause of annoyance it may be to the family, is a grievance for which our Law affords no redress.

Lord Chelmsford in Du Boulay v Du Boulay

A deed poll is a solemn declaration of your intent to assume a new change of name, and thus it’s evidence that you’ve changed your name in good faith. Using the deed poll to update your records and documents to be in your new name is proof (in itself) that you’re using the name publicly.

Enrolling in your deed poll is of course further evidence that you’ve changed your name in good faith, but it’s also strong evidence that you’ve done so publicly. An important part of the enrolment is that the details of the change of name will be advertised (publicly) in the London Gazette.

But — despite this — it’s not a legal requirement to enroll a deed poll or advertise your change of name, and (by convention) a deed poll is acceptable on its own for all U.K. organizations, including HM Passport Office and DVLA. The very fact that you show your deed poll to an organization is, of course, proof that you are publicly assuming the new name.

There has never been any doubt that surnames could be changed at pleasure, seeing as —

they were assumed or chosen by people in the first place (from the 10th to the end of the 14th century)

There was never any law which made it compulsory to have a surname

in practice, surnames were commonly and frequently changed by their bearers

English law has historically always regarded the surname as something much less important than the first name. Sir Edward Coke wrote in 1628

A legal name serves as an individual’s official identity in the eyes of the law and government institutions, ensuring consistency across all formal documentation.

A legal name is a fundamental element of an individual’s identity, serving as the primary identifier in legal and governmental contexts. It typically includes a first name, middle name or initial, and a last name or surname.

The legal name is usually established at birth and recorded on a birth certificate, forming the foundation for all subsequent legal identification.

What’s the problem with this legal name?

The writing style, the registration, the certificate, the loss of status are the problem.

Regardless of writing styles, combining a “Given name” with a “Family name” always forms an artificial legal “person”, e.g. JOHN DOE, and John Doe, are both artificial legal “persons”.

The minimum grammatical separation between the living “Given name” and the dead plural “family name/surname/last name”, is a colon, e.g. John: Doe. It is more definitive to state the correct relationship, e.g. John: of the family Doe. However, adding the “family name/surname/last name” is always optional. The Estate Title is one or more “Given names”, e.g. John-Henry, which is sufficient on any document.

In proper grammar, living "Given names" are proper nouns beginning with a capital letter, and if a “Family name” is added it is separated by a colon indicating the facts and introducing their relationship e.g. John- Henry: Doe. But fictional “persons” are not styled in this grammatically correct manner.

Note the types of “persons” evidenced by the following styles:

John Henry Doe = Foreign Situs Trust JOHN HENRY DOE = Cestui Que Vie ESTATE Trust JOHN H. DOE = Public Transmitting Utility

A man or woman in “joinder” to a “person” becomes the “walking dead”, legally speaking.

By definition, they are incompetent and incapable of possessing living rights and responsibilities. Consequently, their Estate Title properties are forfeit, and they are granted limited and revocable benefits and privileges.

Their “ignorance is negligence”, and for as long as they walk in the underworld of the legally dead, they are subject to the “High Priests of Ba'al”, or the “Black Robed Devil”, who makes a “judgement” upon the one who has given up their life, and in so doing the Priest delivers a curse, in ancient times death, in modern times debt, and the victim is sacrificed.

Every “person” is a debtor by default, and every man or woman who suffers “joinder” to a “person” becomes “surety” in the debt-money system of bondage, sacrificing their living energy via that fictional “transmitting utility”, feeding the parasitic banking cabal which espouses the Roman motto: “He who would be deceived, let him be deceived.”