All men are not persons

[Famspear]

Our resident troglodyte wrote:

A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ...

Or, as my old grandpappy used to say:

PERSONA EST HOMO CUM STATU QUODAM CONSIDERATUS

But, my old grandpappy loved to play practical jokes. He was such a kidder......

[arayder]

PD, loves to cherry pick old law and now old definitions to make points he never clearly states.

He seems to be angling for the notion that since, as he claims, the status as a person is assigned by the government and the courts he might reject, as a matter of contract, his status as a natural person and skate around any and all law he doesn't like.

As we see in this thread PD seems to reject everything since the passage of the 14th amendment which along with much of post 19th century law voids a great deal of Bouvier.

I think he should really be working on a time machine rather than his legal advice business.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm at work and don't have time for extensive research; but Wikipedia has some current links on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_person

[arayder]

Sorry, folks but according to PD rules old law trumps and really old law trumps just plain old law!

According to Hammurabi's Code of Laws:

"Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind."

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

This means that anybody who is not black headed is not subject to the rule of law. I have brown hair and hence am not subject to the rule of law! And since I don't recognize anything to have changed since 1810 BC, the matter is settled!

[Famspear]

Here is the sort of thing that happens if you try to argue, in a federal criminal tax trial, that you're not a "person," or that the government somehow has some sort of obligation to prove that you're a "person", or that the government has "failed" to "prove" that you are a "person":

Defendant Peter Hendrickson was convicted by a jury on ten counts of filing a false document with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and he was sentenced to a 33-month term of imprisonment in a judgment entered on May 25, 2010. Following an appeal and a remand for resentencing, Defendant's prison term was reduced to 27 months through an amended judgment entered on May 17, 2012. Defendant completed this term of imprisonment shortly thereafter, and currently is serving a one-year term of supervised release. Through the present motion filed on December 26, 2012, Defendant requests that his conviction and sentence be vacated on two grounds. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to identify a basis for the relief sought in his motion.

Defendant first contends that his conviction and sentence are invalid in light of the Government's purported failure to allege and prove that he is a "person" as this term is used in 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7343. The Court addressed precisely this same argument in a pretrial ruling, however, holding that both the plain language of the Internal Revenue Code and the uniform weight of the pertinent case law dictate that an ordinary individual qualifies as a "person" under these statutory provisions. See United States v. Hendrickson, 664 F. Supp.2d 793, 813-16 (E.D. Mich. 2009). The Court then reiterated this ruling in an April 26, 2010 opinion denying Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. (See 4/26/2010 Op. at 2-3.) Defendant suggests no basis for concluding that the third time is the charm as to this argument. Rather, the Court adheres to its pre- and post-trial resolution of this issue.

--from OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, United States v. Peter Hendrickson, Criminal No. 08-20585-01, Civil No. 11-11603, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (April 24, 2013) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

Duuuuuuhhhhh.......

[rosvicl]

If patriotdiscussions [sic] is not a person, that would mean he doesn't have the rights of a person. If he is an outlaw, someone outside the law in the old sense of that word, any person can legally kill him: it wouldn't be a crime, nor a civil offense subject to a wrongful death lawsuit. Alternatively, if he's not a person but is a member of the species Homo sapiens (which I will assume since he identifies himself as a man), that means he is an animal (as am I, as are we all: that's not an insult). Animals other than people also lack the right to life under law; depending on jurisdiction, it may be a crime to torture an animal, but not to kill it.

That might be a valid argument, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to define himself that way. There have been attempts (so far without success in the United States) to gain rights/protection for other species of ape by arguing that they are legally people.

(That [sic] is because this so-called patriot seems to be trying to undermine the government of the United States, and his so-called "discussions" consist of badly phrased leading questions and the idea that if he hasn't found something, it doesn't exist.)

[arayder]

(That [sic] is because this so-called patriot seems to be trying to undermine the government of the United States, and his so-called "discussions" consist of badly phrased leading questions and the idea that if he hasn't found something, it doesn't exist.)

It doesn't take much study or intelligence to grasp that the 1856 definition of persons, their roles in society and slavery has since been greatly altered by the 14th amendment, countless state and federal statues as well as a raft of case law.

[Pottapaug1938]

PD probably couldn't care less if a court case was handed down last week by the US Supreme Court or was handed down to Moses, graven on stone tablets, by God Himself. He is fishing for a law which explicitly says that he is a person under US law; and he will explain away any evidence which shows that he is, while offering us this and that cherry-picked quote (often dealing with the law of antiquity) in an attempt to convince us otherwise.

[Famspear]

I hate to split hairs in favor of precision in English expression (oh well, wait, not really, actually I guess I love to split hairs), but the phrase "all men are not persons" really sounds like "no men are persons." That is: "all men = not persons". I don't think that's what PD means.

I think that what PD means to say is: "SOME men are not persons" or "not all men are persons".

It's like that printed message that you see at the beginning of some movies on DVD, where it says "ALL FEATURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN ALL AREAS". What they are literally saying is translated as "NO features are available in ANY areas." What they really mean is "SOME features may not be available in CERTAIN areas".

There.

I feel much better now.



EDIT: It just occurred to me that this discussion might be way too much for PD to handle. After all, he can't even get comfortable with the idea that he's a person.

[NYGman]

PD, you are absolutely right, your superior intellect and self taught Mojo have finally paid off, you have spotted a serious flaw in our legal system that has now made all US laws instantly null and void. While others on this board may now try to dissuade you from publicizing this new found legal position that will allow all men to avoid all aspects of the Law, I for one comment you for publicizing the truth.

Thanks to you, and your diligent research, All men will now not have to pay tax and avoid any law of their choosing. Need something, just take it, as the laws of the US do not apply to all men. You sir have done it, provided full legal justification to exempt us fro the law. How on earth did all those learned people miss this, for over a hundred years. Thank god we have you PD, to continually question the law, and spar with the legal minded folk here, who are the definitive source for the justification of US Law, and the Laws top defenders.

This country owes you a huge Debt, we can now freely rape, pillage and plunder this countries resources without fear of legal repercussions, as this countries laws clearly do not apply to all men, as not all men are persons. You have just solved all of this countries problems. I can't believe the answer was there all along, sitting in old law books, just waiting for you to discover it. How foolish we have all been here, not to see the answer, sitting there in plain sight, All men are nor persons, therefore all laws don't apply to us Men. Genius!

Now, go find something that will help out Women, as I can't find any support for All women are not persons.

All this aside, I was of the impression that the legal definition of Person was more broad than the dictionary definition. a Corporation is a Person under the law, and a corporation is not a Man by any means.

[Famspear]

....I can't find any support for All women are not persons.....

All women are perdaughters, not persons.

No, wait, all women are NOT perdaughters.

....No, wait.

...........SOME women are not perdaughters.

That doesn't sound right.

Now I'm REALLY confused.......

[JamesVincent]

All this aside, I was of the impression that the legal definition of Person was more broad than the dictionary definition. a Corporation is a Person under the law, and a corporation is not a Man by any means.

That^. I've had multiple, multiple "discussions" with others over the years over a corporation being a person. People just can't seem to get it through their heads that a corporation can be a person in certain, specific circumstances. That doesn't make them a human being. My favorite was always the "if they're a person then send them to jail". What a bunch of idiocy. The head of a corporation can be sent to jail and has been. How do you jail a construct? Or, more accurately, a piece of paper?

[Famspear]

....I was of the impression that the legal definition of Person was more broad....

Which makes me think: A broad could be a person but, being the sensitive kind of guy I am, I would never refer to a woman as a "broad."

Oh, wait. I just did.

Oops.



Wow. My jokes are this bad already -- and it's only Tuesday. I hate to think of what I'll be writing by Friday......

[NYGman]

That^. I've had multiple, multiple "discussions" with others over the years over a corporation being a person. People just can't seem to get it through their heads that a corporation can be a person in certain, specific circumstances. That doesn't make them a human being. My favorite was always the "if they're a person then send them to jail". What a bunch of idiocy. The head of a corporation can be sent to jail and has been. How do you jail a construct? Or, more accurately, a piece of paper?

Sovereign seem to understand this argument, isn't it core to their beliefs. Don't they view themselves as both a legal fiction (Corporation - or FULL NAME) and the man (human) running it? They understand that the Corporation (Legal Fiction) can be punished, fined, encumbered, but the Man behind it will remain free, and is separated from its legal fiction under the law. I thought they relied on the broad definition of Person to justify this position. Interesting PD Is taking another view on this.

And Fam, Under the English Common law, the role of the wife was defined as "feme covert", which emphasizes her subordination to her husband, and puts her under the ‘protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord. Even in the early 1800's in the US, Married women were viewed this way. I am sure if I look hard enough I can find some cases on point, that will show married women can't own property, obviously this is still true today, as PD has shown old law is still of value, and can be relied upon today.

[Pottapaug1938]

....I can't find any support for All women are not persons.....

All women are perdaughters, not persons.

No, wait, all women are NOT perdaughters.

....No, wait.

...........SOME women are not perdaughters.

That doesn't sound right.

Now I'm REALLY confused.......

We also have to consider the status of those under 18. They can be US citizens (or citizens of the US if you prefer); but I have yet to see a law which explicitly states that a boy or girl is a person.

[Famspear]

We also have to consider the status of those under 18. They can be US citizens (or citizens of the US if you prefer); but I have yet to see a law which explicitly states that a boy or girl is a person.

Excellent point!

Boy, since PD opened this thread, I now realize that this legal stuff is so complicated and technical. But he really seems to have a professorial ability to identify the cogent issues. I'm glad we have PD to guide us......

[Hyrion]

actually I guess I love to split hairs

It's absolutely necessary when one wants to make a stew...

oh... wait... wrong spelling

[Famspear]

actually I guess I love to split hairs

It's absolutely necessary when one wants to make a stew...

oh... wait... wrong spelling

I think the bad-joke-itis germ is contagious....

[arayder]

....I can't find any support for All women are not persons.....

All women are perdaughters, not persons.

No, wait, all women are NOT perdaughters.

....No, wait.

...........SOME women are not perdaughters.

That doesn't sound right.

Now I'm REALLY confused.......

We also have to consider the status of those under 18. They can be US citizens (or citizens of the US if you prefer); but I have yet to see a law which explicitly states that a boy or girl is a person.

Society has always struggled to define what constitutes a person. The fact that we can look back to 1856 and see that U.S. law didn't see slaves as persons, or that women were thought to be the property of their husbands is not surprising at all. Those where the roles and the status society thought was to be assigned to them.

But our society is different today and we don't see race or gender as limiting statuses. That's why PD's quote mining is, in this, case so absurd.

Today we struggle with when or if a fetus becomes a person. Or when a person in a vegetative state cesses to be alive, a person. Or if a corporation is a person with the right to free speech.

But we sure as can be don't buy Bouvier's definition anymore!

[Pottapaug1938]

I love how PD, David Merrill and so many others treat the 1856 Bouvier opus as if it were legal holy writ, instead of a mildly amusing historical artifact.