Guest, the natural person is just a legal entity and not the real man or woman. Check out the reasoning, below.


http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/3801-sovereign-person-entity-individual-3.html

Some people misunderstand the use of the phrase "natural person". Supreme Court has held that a "person" (of any kind) is a fictitious legal or commercial entity. Most people think that a natural person is a reference to a human being, and they are right - partially.

While a natural person is technically a human being, it is not a human being in sovereign form, but a human being in legal or commercial form. The definition of "natural person" given in Black's Law Dictionary, as well as the state codes is "A human being which has been ascribed rights and duties by the State". In other words it's more word games trying to make you think that, if you are a human being, the word "natural person" applies to you. This is ONLY if you declare yourself to be a "person". If you are a sovereign, you cannot be given rights and duties by the states, because, as Supreme Court said, "Let a State be subordinate to the people... [the State] is the inferior contrivance of man..." If a State is inferior to me, how does the State presume to tell me what my rights and duties are? It is the PEOPLE who tell the STATES what the State's rights and duties are, and the only way that role can be reversed is if the sovereigns agree to it. If you are a sovereign (which the people are), then you are not a "person" OF ANY KIND, unless you declare yourself to be so. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held this, and "natural person" is the latest word game of the attorneys. Supreme Court says if you ARE a sovereign, you CANNOT be a "person".
Last edited by hooded50 : 02-07-2007 at 06:56 AM.


http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/3801-sovereign-person-entity-individual-4.html

So far, I've had three judges recuse themselves from any case involving me, another judge who retired rather than answer my questions, and another judge who refused to act against me when confronted with these facts. Hence, your contention that "...it always loses when it is the support to a legal argument." is, in and of itself, erroneous. There is no "legal argument", because what I've given is facts that the Supreme Court for the united States of America has confirmed. The various Codes of the States defines a "person" as "..an individual, corporation, trust, estate, association or other legal or commercial entity."The Supreme Court for the united States of America held in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens that: "...The definition of "person"...includes...any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity." Even Supreme Court admits that a "natural person" is still a "legal entity", and that the term "natural person" falls within the definition of "person". A "natural person" is a human being, but it is a human being that is legally recognized as a "legal" entity, and not recognized as a "sovereign". Last edited by hooded50 : 02-07-2007 at 06:52 PM.


See the reference to the court case, below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1828.ZO.html

14 The dissent contends that our argument "prove[s] too much," since
the definition of "person" in §3733(l)(4) includes not just States, but also "any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity"; under our reasoning, it contends, all of those entities would also be excluded from the definition of "person" under §3729. Post, at 11.

Undeniable Truth