One of my readers left the following comment under one of my articles:
“In your opinion, does the definition of person enter the picture. I am not sure what you mean by “capacity” of person. I am in New Mexico and here the word, person, in the New Mexico Criminal Code & the word person in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code is different. I am not a person as defined in the N.M.M.V.D. Code but it certainly appears that I am a person as defined in the N.M. Criminal Code. In trying to explain this to a police officer a while back, he immediately called somebody & said: ‘I have a person here that says he is not a person.’”
That comment got me thinking. I started to write a brief “reply” to try to briefly explain my understanding of “person”. But my reply continued to grow until I realized that it was not a mere “reply,” but (at least) the germ of an article. In fact, this article has grown to about 7,500 words, and veered off from mere “persons” to speculate on the significance of emergency, treason, genocide and even our obligation to pay income taxes and traffic fines. The article is long and unfocused because many of the “insights” are coming to me for the first time, as I write. But, despite the rambling nature, I think the article offers some insight (or at least conjecture) that you may find interesting.
• I’m fuzzy on the concept of “person”.
I’m not sure that the balance of this text is accurate.
However, it appears to me that a “person” can never exist in isolation and all by himself, but is instead defined in relation to some other “person” or entity. No relationship; no person.
I view “personality” a little like geometry. Imagine two “points” on a piece of paper: point “A” and point “B”. These two “points” are completely separate, independent and free—unless someone “connects the dots” (points) and draws a “line” (relationship) between the two points. Now, because of rules of their “relationship,” point A is no longer separate, independent and free but must act “in relation to” B. Likewise, point B is no longer separate, independent and free, but must now act “in relation to” A.
The rules of geometric relationships can vary. The rule of a particular relationship might be that A can never be more that 3 inches from B; no matter where B moves, A must remain within 3 inches. Or, the rule of a particular geometric relationship might be that the distance between A and B must double every day for a month. Or, it could be that the distance between A and B could vary infinitely, but A must always be at an angle of 30 degrees relative to B.
There are an innumerable number of potential geometric relationships between A and B. The rules of each relationship can vary. But within the context of any particular relationship, there are rules that control the behavior of A and B in relation to each other. So long as the relationship exists between A and B, the two points are bound to each other. Again, no relationship = no “person(s)”
• OK—let’s expand the illustration of the relationship between geometric “points” to the relationship between persons. Instead of points A and B, we’ll start with the man “Alfred” and the woman “Betty”.
So long as “Alfred” and “Betty” remain as unrelated people, they are each separate, independent and free (in relation to each other). But if someone happens to “connect the dots” (say, Alfred goes out on a date with Betty), Alfred is no longer a separate, free and independent man but has instead become a “person” in relation to Betty. Betty, likewise, is no longer a separate, free and independent woman, but has become a “person” in relation to Alfred.
The word “person” is a little like the word “married”. Both words imply the existence of a relationship with someone else who is also related to you. The “husband-person” is married (in relation to) the “wife-person”. The wife-person is married (in relation to) the “husband-person”. It takes (at least) two individuals to enter into a relationship and thereby cause each become a “person”.
Each “person” is a kind of “mask”. Depending on whichever kind of relationship you are in, you are expected to wear a different “mask” and play a different “part”. Insofar as each mask/person is not really you, but merely you “playing a part,” each mask/person is somewhat unreal or artificial.
• So far as I can tell, a “person” cannot exist in isolation. A “person” can only exist in relation to another “person”. In the same sense that an isolated point (dot) becomes the end-point of a line (relationship) when someone “connects the dots,” a “person” is one “end” of a relationship to another individual who, by virtue of the relationship, also becomes a “person” (the other “end” of the relationship).
In the context of a particular relationship, both parties to that relationship are “persons” who are bound by the rules of the relationship. For example, under the rules of the relationship based on Alfred having dated Betty, Betty can expect Alfred to call her on the day after the date. If Alfred fails to call Betty on time, he will have violated the rules of their relationship and caused Betty to feel pain or even fury.
In the alternative, if Alfred fails to call following the first date, it may be Alfred’s way of denying the existence of the “relationship” (“That broad is crazy, Jim. I’ll never date her again!”) If there is no relationship between Alfred (point A) and Betty (point B), neither is a “person” in relation to the other, neither is bound by any rules of the relationship, neither can claim and rights or duties against the other.
• The point I’m trying to illustrate is that the independent man Alfred apparently becomes a “person” only when he enters into a relationship with another independent entity (Betty). Betty, likewise, can only become a “person” by entering into a relationship with another entity like Alfred. So long as that relationship exists, the two parties are bound by the rules of the relationship and each has corresponding rights and duties to the other within the context of that relationship.
Whenever Alfred is acting as a person in relation to Betty, he’d better “treat her right” (perform his duties and honor her rights within the context of their relationship).
But Alfred isn’t always acting in relation to Betty. Sometimes Alfred goes to work where he becomes an entirely different “person” whose relationship is with his employer rather than Betty. And, while Alfred is acting as an employee-person, Betty had better “treat him right” by not calling him at work every ten minutes to see if he’s having sex with secretary with the big bazooms.
• If I’m correct that our status as a “person” exists in relation to other entities, then we each become a different “person” every time we enter into a different relationship. It’s entirely possible for each of us to enter into a multitude of different “personalities” each day—depending on who we are relating to at any given moment. All by myself, I am the man made in God’s image, endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights and acting at arm’s length. But, in relation to Betty I’m no longer a “man,” per se, but rather a “person”. In relation to my boss, I’m a completely different “person”. In relation to the cop who stops me to give me a traffic ticket, I become a third, completely different person.
For example, if I (an individual man acting at arm’s length) voluntarily enter into a trust relationship as a “fiduciary,” I become a “person” in relationship to the “beneficiary” of that trust. I am no longer just me (a man). I am become a “person” in relation to the beneficiary (who is now, also a “person” in relation to me). Within the context of that particular relationship, I am a “person” who has certain rights and/or duties to the other “person(s)” in that particular relationship which I do not have in relationship to others. Thus, my fiduciary relationship does not mean that I’m always a “person”—I’m only a “person” in relationship to the beneficiary when I act in ways relevant to the beneficiary. When I’m out playing baseball, or going to the grocery store, and acting in ways that have no relationship to the beneficiary, I am again a “man” rather than a “person” (at least relative to the beneficiary).
But when I voluntarily play baseball, I become another “person” relative to my team and/or the game. As fiduciary for a beneficiary, I must conduct myself according to the rules of that particular trust relationship. As a “baseball person,” I must conduct myself according to the “rules” of the baseball relationship. As a “baseball person” I have certain rights and duties that I do not have as a “fiduciary person”. So long as I’m acting exclusively as a “baseball person,” I have no rights or duties as the “fiduciary person” in relation to my beneficiary.
If I go to a grocery store, I become yet another “person” acting in relation to the grocery store “context”. I can’t eat the food in the grocery store until I pay for it. I can’t shoplift the broccoli. I can’t spit on the steaks. I am expected to pay for the food before I leave the store. As a “grocery store person,” I have a completely different set of rights and duties than I’d have as a “fiduciary person” or “baseball person”.
If I voluntarily consent to be a “citizen of the United States” I believe that I become a “US person”. (I don’t know or allege that “US person” is the correct term to describe someone who participates in this relationship. Maybe it would be more correct to use the term “citizen-person” or “taxpayer-person”. Nevertheless, I’m using “US person” in this article as a mere convenience—not a statement of truth.) As a “US person,” I have another brand new set of rights and duties that exist whenever I act in relation to that “United States”.
• But what happens when I’m acting in two “personalities” at the same time?
For example, what happens if I go to the grocery store to buy food for my beneficiary? On the one hand, as a “fiduciary person,” I’m obligated to feed my beneficiary. On the other hand, as a “grocery store person,” I’m obligated to pay for the food. But what if I’m broke and I can’t (as “grocery store person”) fulfill my obligation to pay for food? Does my obligation (as “fiduciary person”) supersede and allow (or even compel) me to steal food (break the rules of “grocery store person”) to fulfill my obligation as “fiduciary person” to feed my beneficiary?
As long as you can keep your personalities separate, there’s no confusion or conflict. But what happens when a man acts simultaneously in two “personalities” and the rights or duties of one personality collide with the rights and duties of the other personality? Which personality is predominant? Which controls? Is the subordinate personality merely supplanted or is it suspended or even cancelled?
• I suspect that governmental immunities illustrate an attempt to resolve conflicts between “personalities”.
For example, if I were to take a club and start beating you on the head, I’d be violating your rights and my duties as a “US person”. As a “US person,” I have a duty not to thump you on the head. Conversely, as a “US person,” you have a right to be free from being thumped.
But what if I’m a cop? What if I’ve shed my “personality” as “US person” to act in the role of “cop person”? What if the law of “cop persons” allows me (based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion) to conclude that you are no longer a “US person” but instead a “suspect person” in a crime (violation of the “US person” rights and duties). As a “cop person,” I’m entitled to thump the crap out of anyone I believe to be a “suspect person”.
But what if it turns out that that my reasonable suspicion was wrong and that you’re not a “suspect person” who broke the “law” of conduct for “US persons” but were, at all relevant times, acting properly within the rules of relationships for “US persons”? If you weren’t a “suspect person,” then I had no right to thump your melon. So, should I go to jail for beating the crap out of some innocent “US person”?
Of course not. The legislatures, in their infinite wisdom, have granted me (as a “cop person”) immunity from the laws of “US persons” and the responsibility for not hitting other “US persons” on the head.
In a sense, this “immunity” for “cop persons” (and judge persons and prosecutor persons and government employee persons) is a title of nobility that frees some “US persons” from the duties and obligations of that “personality” whenever they are simultaneously acting in the capacity of “cop persons” or “government persons”. The legislature resolved conflicts between a man who was sometimes both a “cop person” and a “US person” with the concept of “immunity” for the “cop person” from the obligations imposed by the “personality” of the “US person”.
• The legislature provides immunities for governmental employees who break the laws regarding their roles as “US persons”. But juries and even cops can provide similar “immunities” to individuals who seemingly break the law.
For example, under the doctrine of “emergency,” each of us can become a different “person”. Normally, when the society is running properly and peacefully, I am apparently presumed to be a “US person” subject to the rules and regulations of “this state”. If I’m caught driving 80 MPH in reverse in a school zone, you can bet I’m going to get some tickets and maybe trip to the slammer.
However, if someone is shooting at me, I become a different “person”. Because my life is in danger, I am no longer a simple “US person”. Instead, I become an “emergency person” with a right and duty to protect my life. As a “US person,” I have no right to drive 80 MPH in reverse in a school zone—as a man whose life is imperiled I become another “person” who does have such rights.
As soon as I show the cop the bullet holes in my radiator and windshield, he should stop writing a ticket to me and instead go looking for the shooter. If the cop still writes the tickets, a jury might later recognize that I was acting under “emergency conditions” wherein I was entitled to act as an “emergency person” rather than a “US person” and therefore was not liable as a “US person” for speeding in a school zone.
Emergency exempts us from the normal duties associated with being a “US person” as a matter of self-defense. It’s possible that all acts of self-defense release us from the role of “US person” or “fiduciary person” or “cop person” and allow us to function as individual men and women—not “persons” at all.
As a “US person,” I can’t lawfully shoot other “US persons” nor can they lawfully shoot me. But if some other “US person” starts chasing me with an axe (and thereby threatening my life and violating his duty as a “US person”), I have the right to defend my life and kill the SOB.
• It’s not clear to me if the doctrines of “emergency” and “self-defense” are special exemptions from the rules governing “US persons” or if they are absolute repudiations of the role and associated obligations of “US persons”. In other words, if someone tries to kill me and I kill him instead, am I allowed to kill him because he broke the terms of our relationship as “US persons” by trying to kill me . . . and thereby released me from my role as “US person” . . . and thus allowed me (as an individual man) to kill him? Or, is there a special exception in the rules of “US persons” that goes something like this:
Rule 1: A US person shalt not kill another US persons.
Rule 2: But if one US person does try to kill a second US person, the second US person has the right as a US person to kill the first US person.
In other words, in the context of an “emergency” or “self-defense” am I still deemed to be a “US person” acting under an exception the general rules of that “personality”—or am no longer a US person and thereby absolved from the rules of the US person relationship?
I don’t have an answer. I don’t even have a hunch as to which answer to that question may be correct. In fact, I suspect that, under certain circumstances, either answer might be right. Some emergencies might completely absolve you from the role and obligations of a “US person” or “fiduciary person” or “baseball person” and reduce (or elevate—depending on your point of view) you to the status of an individual man. In the context of other emergencies, you might be allowed to act in “special” ways that would normally be illegal for a US person but would nevertheless still be allowed for US persons during a “special” class of emergencies.
• Our government has been operating under the pretext of a national emergency since A.D. 1933. Apparently, it’s under the pretext of an emergency that those officials and employees of “this state” are allowed to violate their oaths of office to the constitutions of The States of the Union. I.e., under the pretext of “emergency,” those whose oaths of office cause them to appear to be “officer-persons under the Constitution” are allowed to act as some other kind of “private” or “emergency person” under the rules of “this state”.
• The concept of “emergency” is seldom far from most Americans’ lives. Most commuters see evidence of “emergencies” every day when they see a traffic cop chasing another car to issue a ticket.
What’s the first thing the cop does as condition prerequisite for issuing a traffic ticket? He turns on his emergency lights and siren. When those emergency lights start flashing and the siren starts blaring, the officer appears to be giving notice that he believes an “emergency” exists. In the context of that alleged emergency, the police officer can violate the law. Can the officer drive 100 MPH in a 65 MPH zone? He sure can—provided it’s an “emergency”.
Whether the officer-person must absolutely flash his emergency lights while he’s breaking the law (driving 100 MPH) isn’t absolutely clear to me. I think he must probably keep those lights flashing whenever he exceeds the speed limit, but I’m not sure.
• It is conceivable that traffic tickets which are issued without victims, injured parties or property damage may be only allowed under the pretext of an “emergency”. Suppose you have a wreck and hit another guy’s car and cause property damage, injury or death. When the cops arrive, will they give you a ticket for reckless driving or some such? Probably—if the police can conclude that you are responsible for the injuries or damages.
But I’ve heard of instances where two “persons” are involved in a fender-bender, the cops arrive and they do not issue any traffic tickets but instead leave it up to the insurance companies to resolve the problems of injuries and damages. This failure to issue traffic tickets is probably because the cop didn’t actually witness the collision, can’t testify as to who is responsible and therefore can’t issue a traffic ticket. But is it possible that the cop can only issue traffic tickets under the pretext of an “emergency”? Probably not—but, maybe.
What happens when a traffic cop issues a ticket when there’s been no actual injured party or property? Under common law, if you didn’t injure anyone or damage someone else’s property, you generally couldn’t be held liable for an offense. It’s like street basketball: no blood, no foul.
So, what is the rationale for issuing a $200 traffic ticket to someone seen driving without a seatbelt? There’s no injury. No property damage.
What if a man is driving 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone? Virtually everyone drives 70 to 75 in a 65 MPH zone, so what’s the problem? If there’s no injury or damages, why the ticket? In fact, why is the traffic cop even stopping you without a warrant?
Is it possible that by virtue of driving 75 MPH in the 65 MPH zone, you are deemed to be responsible for having created an “emergency”? The police officer, seeing this purported “emergency” therefore turns on his “emergency lights” to give notice of the purported “emergency” and pulls you over to issue a ticket for speeding or no seat belt or some such—but in fact, actually gives you a ticket for having created an “emergency”?
What happens when the cop pulls you over and comes up to the window on your car?
You say, “What seems to be problem, officer?”
What you’re really saying is “What seems to be the emergency, officer?”
Does the officer ever answer your question? Does he ever tell you what the alleged emergency was?
Or does he instead ask you a question: “Do you know how fast you were going?” or “May I see your drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance?”
What would happen if you expressly asked “What is the emergency, officer?”
What would happen if you insisted (politely) that the officer specify the alleged “emergency” that allowed him to pull you over?
What if you disputed the existence of a genuine “emergency”? (Does an unfastened seatbelt constitute a genuine “emergency”? Does driving 75 when everyone else is driving 70 to 75 constitute a real “emergency”?)
Without the pretext of an emergency, can the officer “break the law” by trespassing on your right to travel, cause you to stop without warrant, and create an even greater “emergency” by causing you (and the officer) to park alongside the highway where you might both be killed by some other crazy driver?
What would happen if you conceded that if your driving without a seatbelt may have constituted an emergency, you’ve fastened your seatbelt, that emergency is therefore ended, and you asked the officer to therefore turn off his emergency lights and let you go?
Why are the police officer’s emergency lights still flashing after you’re parked alongside the highway? Because your seatbelt wasn’t fastened (alleged “emergency” #1)? Or because you and the cop are parked alongside the highway and may thereby cause a serious wreck and some fatalities (emergency #2)?
• My point in all of this is that the officer is empowered by law to declare when small “emergencies” exist. More, under the pretext of an “emergency,” the officer (who may not really be a public servant of “The State” of the Union but is actually a private, corporate employee of “this state”) is entitled to “break the (common?) law” by stopping people from traveling who have not caused actual injury or damages.
In the context of an alleged “emergency,” is a private, corporate employee (“US person”?) entitled to become a different “person” who is not bound by constitutional rules, but is instead empowered to break the law? In the context of an alleged “emergency,” are you (the driver who failed to fasten his seatbelt and thereby created the alleged “emergency”) deemed to have compromised or even cancelled your status as a “US person” (who might be “free to travel”) to become an “emergency-causing person” who is effectively “outlawed” and denied whatever protections from trespass his status as “US person” might otherwise provide?
Our status as a particular kind of “person” can be altered by our current context. In a state of peace, you might be one person. In a state of emergency, you might be deemed to be an entirely different person. The context determines the nature of the relationship. The relationship determines the rules that govern the persons who are party to the relationship.
• I am increasingly suspicious that the “this state” territory (as an alternative to The States of the Union) may exist in large measure under the doctrine of emergency. Under the alleged “emergency” of A.D. 1933 and the subsequent loss of gold and silver coin from domestic circulation, the governments of The States of the Union were rendered insolvent and apparently inoperable. Under the pretext of this “emergency,” the governments of The States of the Union were supplanted by the privatized, administrative agencies of “this state” (which appears to be a territory rather than a State of the Union). [If you’re not familiar with the The State/“this state” dichotomy theory, consider “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/]
If that that “this state” has been built on the cornerstone of a national “emergency,” it’s also true that this emergency is presumed by gov-co, but largely unknown by the people.
If “this state” is based on the unstated presumption of the existence of an “emergency,” then a primary defense against prosecutions by “this state” may be to expressly deny the existence of any emergency.
Suppose we can prove that gov-co’s oppressive powers can only exist in an emergency. Suppose we effectively deny under oath the existence of any such emergency. In theory, this would compel a prosecutor to prove in court that an emergency exists that is sufficient to justify the violations of your State or federal constitutions.
In essence, whenever a cop, prosecutor or judge drops his constitutional pants and orders you to kiss his oppressive ass—it may be that under the pretext of an “emergency,” you are deemed to be an “emergency person” who must pucker up (a “puckering person”?) and kiss as ordered.
But, assuming my conjecture about emergencies and the effect of “emergencies” on our status as “persons” is roughly correct, must you really kiss their governmental asses if there is no emergency?
If you can effectively deny the existence of any “emergency” sufficient to suspend the constitutions and reduce you to the status of “US person” rather than one of the People of The United States of America, will the gov-co dare to produce evidence on the public record and in front of a jury that an “emergency” has existed since A.D. 1933 to justify the suspension of the constitutions and the suspension of your status as one of We the People?
I don’t think so.
Will the gov-co admit on the public record that they’ve been exploiting the pretext of a 78-year old “emergency” in order to abolish State governments and suspend enforcement of all State and much of the federal constitutions? Wouldn’t such an admission constitute a confession of treason against the States of the Union? Isn’t treason a capital offense? [For explanation of my notions on “treason,” see my Article “The States of Union vs. The Territory” at: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/.]
Will the gov-co publicly admit (even implicitly) to having committed treason for the past 78 years?
I don’t think so.
• But, let’s suppose that my conjecture about the relationship of “emergency” to “person” is mistaken.
OK—where’s the harm in denying the existence of an “emergency” as part of your strategy as a defendant?
I can deny that the prosecutor is Donald Duck. That denial will certainly sound silly, but insofar as the prosecutor is not actually “Donald Duck,” my denial will not create any additional liability for myself.
Similarly, despite my conjecture to the contrary, maybe “this state” is not ultimately founded on the existence of an “emergency”. Therefore, if (in the context of my defense) I deny the existence of an emergency, I might sound a little silly, but where’s the harm? Has my denial added any more liability to the mess I’m already in? I can’t see how.
The first rule of “guerilla lawfare” is “Guru, do thy patriot no harm.” I.e., try not to advocate a strategy that might increase, rather than diminish, a defendant’s liabilities.
• The similarity between “emergency” and “self-defense” also suggests some intriguing conjecture.
If it were true that “this state” and gov-co’s current levels of non-constitutional oppression are based on the presumption of an emergency, that emergency not only frees the cops (judges, legislators, etc.) to violate the Constitution, it might also free me to violate my State’s Constitution—and perhaps even the statutes.
Prosecutor: “Did you shoot Mr. Brown?”
Defendant: “We were in a state of emergency, I was no longer a “US person” bound by normal laws, and therefore it was OK for me to shoot the bastard.”
Assuming that “this state” (including the court and the prosecutor) exists as a function of an emergency, the prosecutor might be faced with a very difficult task if an accused defended his conduct as justified under the pretext of an “emergency”. How does a prosecutor prove that there was no emergency to free the defendant from liability for breaking the rules and obligations imposed on a “US person” without also denying the existence of the emergency that allows the cop, prosecutor and judge to violate the rules and laws that apply to We the People?
If an emergency can justify the gov-co’s offenses, will it also justify mine?
If the gov-co is acting (especially in a privatized capacity) under the pretext of a national “emergency,” why can’t I also (in a private capacity) operate under the pretext of a national “emergency”? There may be good reasons for that inequality, but I don’t know what they are and I doubt that any real authority exists to justify that inequality.
• Here’s another possibility:
As I’ve explained in my first two “man or other animals” articles (http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/ and http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/man-or-other-animals-laws-1/) our gov-co has expressly declared the American people to be animals. So far as I know, the earliest instance of this atrocity occurred in the A.D. 1906 Food and Drug Act. Our gov-co has expressly declared you, your spouse, your children and your parents to be “animals” for over a century.
If you think the rules and obligations imposed on a “US person” are bad, the rights and duties of being an “animal person” must be even worse. Reducing Americans from the status of We the People to the status of animals is virtually certain to constitute an act of treason.
But, as I explained in my third article on “man or other animals” (http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/), reducing Americans from the status of We the People to “animals” also constitutes an act of genocide.
Which brings up a couple of interesting questions:
1. What is my legal obligation to pay income taxes to support an alleged “government” clearly and demonstrably engaged in treason against the several “United States” (the States of the Union)?
2. What is my legal obligation to pay income taxes to support an alleged “government” that is clearly and demonstrably committing genocide against me and the rest of the People of The United States of America?
Insofar as the government can be shown to have committed treason against the States of the Union and genocide against the People of The United States of America, hasn’t that government (much like a “US person” who’s chasing me with an axe) essentially violated the rules of our relationship so as to destroy that relationship and release me from my obligations as a “US person”? Just as I’m allowed (as an act of self-defense) to shoot the axe murderer, am I not also allowed as an act of self-defense to stop sending tax revenues to a government that’s subjecting me and the American people to treason and genocide?
Isn’t self-preservation (self-defense) the highest of man’s duties?
Isn’t refusing to pay income taxes to a government engaged in treason and genocide and act of self-preservation?
Should the Jews have been legally obligated to pay income taxes to the Nazis that were subjecting them to genocide? Of course not. The Jews had no more moral duty to support the Nazis trying to kill them, than I do to support the axe murderer chasing me around the backyard. Instead, my duty is to disable or destroy those who seek to destroy me.
Similarly, should the American People be obligated to pay income taxes to a gov-co that subjects them to genocide?
It think not.
•So, what if I sent a notice to the IRS (and maybe the US Attorney General) precisely informing them of the treason and genocide being committed by the US gov-co against the American people? What if I informed them that this treason and genocide constituted a national emergency? What if I informed them that self-preservation is man’s highest duty? What if I informed them that the gov-co’s acts of treason and genocide terminated my relationship to the gov-co as a “taxpayer-person”? What if my notice included my declaration that, in the context of this national emergency, I was no longer a “taxpayer-person” and I was going to stop paying income taxes as an act of self-preservation and self-defense . . . ?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
• If I were to send such Notice to the IRS and Attorney General, and if they could “get me” all alone and prosecute me without any public scrutiny, they might bury me in a pretty deep prison or maybe just bury me.
But if I’d already published the fundamental theory underlying my Notice, the world might have reason to wonder if my theory were true. Then, if the gov-co were to grab me and cause me to be “disappeared,” some of the world might deem my disappearance to be evidence of my theory’s validity.
And then, the IRS and Attorney General might start receiving more Notices that were similar to mine. And sooner or later, the gov-co would have to answer in public whether the People had a legal obligation to pay taxes to support a government engaged in both treason against the States of the Union and genocide against We the People.
Interesting line of conjecture, no?
And this conjecture is not limited to questions of income tax.
For example, suppose—under the pretext of “emergency”—your friendly, local cop gave you a $200 ticket for failure to fasten your seat belt. Is the municipal court that wants to collect that $200 part of a “government” that’s defined the people to be animals and thus subjected them to genocide?
If so, what’s your legal or moral obligation to pay money to any agency of any government engaged in treason against the States of the Union and/or genocide against We the People of The United States of America? As an act of self-preservation and self-defense, don’t you have a right and even a duty to refuse to pay that $200?
In fact, when you get right down to it, if the distinction between “The States” of the Union and “this state” (of the territory) is real (again, see “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/), then it’s arguable that virtually everything “this state” does constitutes an act of treason against The States of the Union. I.e., doesn’t “this state” “levy war” against the States of the Union by trying to supplant them? Isn’t “this state” (territory) therefore intrinsically and innately guilty of treason at all times? Is there any other justification or pretext for the treason of “this state” other than the claim of a “national emergency”?
What if that “emergency” is denied or even proved not to exist? Isn’t an “emergency” a temporary state of affairs? How can we still be in the same national emergency that was first declared by FDR in A.D. 1933? Why hasn’t anyone in government worked to end that emergency?
Could it be that “this state” cannot exist except under the pretext of an emergency?
• What about “identification”? Do your identification documents identify you as an individual man or woman (one of We the People) within a State of the Union? Or do they identify you as a person in relation to “this state”? Do your identification documents identify you or do they identify the “state of affairs” (peace or emergency??) with which you are related? If you identification identifies your context or “state of affairs,” does your identification thereby signify one of your many “persons”? Does that “person” operate under the rules of a particular relationship which grant you far fewer rights than you might have as one of We the People and also subject you to far more duties and obligations?
• This conjecture raises another interesting question:
1) Each of us has the potential to act as several different “persons”;
2) Each of us can sometimes act in more than one personality at the same time;
3) Those simultaneous personalities sometimes conflict and/or contradict each other; and,
4) Government recognizes some “personalities” to be predominate over others—then,
5) Is there a single “personality” that is predominate over all other “personalities”? Is there a single “personality” that “trumps” all other personalities and thereby absolves anyone acting in that personality from any liabilities imposed by “lower” or “subordinate” personalities?
Could it be the cop-person? Nah.
Judge-person? No. Prosecutor? Legislator? President? Pope? No.
Each of these “persons” would seem to enjoy varying degrees of immunity from liabilities and obligations imposed by other “lower” persons. But none is absolutely immune.
Nor does absolute immunity exist for any man in any “personality”.
But if I had to guess—if you were deemed to be a “sovereign” (a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights as per the “Declaration of Independence”) and you stayed in that “person” or capacity, you would probably be “immune” from 90% or more of the current rules and regulations to which “US persons” or “taxpayer persons” are routinely subjected.
Who would that “sovereign” be? He’d be a man in relation to God rather than a person in relation to government. That sovereign would be absolutely subject to God’s law, but only subject to man’s law insofar as man’s law did not conflict with God’s. That sovereign’s law would be the Bible, and any time he entered court, he might do so with the Bible as “his law”.
Maybe. . . .
• Finally, who is to say which of your several potential “persons” you must play at any given time?
If you were only a dot (“point A”) on a piece of paper, a mathematician might “connect you” to another dot (“point B”) and thereby reduce you from the status of free and independent “dot” into a “person” in relation to point B.
But as a man in a purportedly free society, aren’t you free to determine whatever relationships you enter into? And if you are free to choose your relationships, then are you also free to choose whichever of your various “persons” to choose to act as?
In a tyrannical or despotic society, you wouldn’t be “free” to choose your relationships and thus you wouldn’t be free to determine whichever “person” you wanted to be. The tyrant or despot (or their governmental agencies) would determine your “person”. It would be like being in the Army. The Army would determine if you were a “private-person” or a “sergeant-person” or an “officer-person”. Your job would be to play the “part” or “person” assigned to you as flawlessly as possible. If you performed your assigned “person” properly, you might be rewarded with promotion to an even higher “person”. If you performed your assigned person badly, you might be punished and demoted. But you would have virtually no direct choice as to whichever “person” you’d be allowed to “play”.
• It’s arguable that the essence of a free society is the ability of all the people to pick their own “persons”.
Do we have a free society? To some degree. That degree seems to be diminishing with each passing year, but there are still significant vestiges of freedom in this country that the government has not yet overtly destroyed.
For the moment, if my conjecture about “persons” is roughly correct, it appears likely that you still have the right and freedom to choose whichever “person” you want to act as, at any particular time. That would seem to be a good thing—except that the vast majority (99%?) of Americans have no idea of what I’m talking about and would therefore regard my notion that you can “pick your persons” to be incomprehensible or absurd—and they might be right.
But what if my conjecture was roughly correct and the vast majority of people of Americans were ignorant of their right to “pick their person”? Could the gov-co exploit the public’s ignorance by subjecting the people to being certain “persons” (maybe “US person” or “taxpayer person,” etc.) based on each individual’s conduct, the court’s presumption that they were a certain kind of “person,” and the individual’s failure to expressly deny that he had voluntarily consented to enter into a relationship that rendered him into a “person” with duties that were contrary to his interests or desires?
A classic illustration of this possibility is seen in implied trust relationships.
If a plaintiff (say, Point B/ “Betty”) were to enter into a court of equity and merely imply that:
1) An implied trust relationship existed between herself and “Point A” (“Alfred”);
2) That she (“Betty”) was the beneficiary-person of this relationship and Point A (“Alfred”) was the fiduciary-person;
3) Under this implied relationship, the fiduciary-person Alfred had violated his fiduciary obligations to beneficiary-person Betty; and,
4) If Alfred isn’t smart enough to expressly deny the existence of any trust relationship between himself and Betty wherein he is presumed to have voluntarily accepted the “servitude” of being the “fiduciary-person” for Betty’s “beneficiary-person”; then,
5) The court, hearing no objection or denial from Alfred as to the existence of the implied trust relationship, will presume the implied trust relationship to have actually existed; will “construe” that unenforceable implied trust relationship into an enforceable constructive trust; will deem Alfred to be a fiduciary-person; will deem Alfred to be in breach of fiduciary obligations; and finally, fine or otherwise penalize Alfred for breaching his duties as “fiduciary-person” to Betty’s plaintiff-beneficiary-person.
All of this can happen based primarily on the ignorance of both alleged “persons” and the silence of the implied “fiduciary-person” Alfred. No one need say the words “trust,” “fiduciary,” “beneficiary”. In a court of equity, the judge will have discretion to “construe or not construe” (that is the question) the plaintiff’s complaint from an implied trust into a constructive trust that’s enforceable against Alfred.
The only strategy that I know of that can stop this presumptive freight train is for Alfred to stand up in court, under oath, and say:
“Hell, no! There is no implied trust relationship between Betty and myself. I have never voluntarily and knowingly consented to act as a fiduciary for Betty’s benefit. I have not assumed a “person” in relation to Betty. I have always acted at arm’s length with regard to Betty. If she alleges that I’ve caused her any actual injury or damages, she can take me to a court of LAW—but she has no basis (a voluntary relationship between two persons/“points”) for suing me in equity.”
My point is that I strongly suspect that we are subjected to many of our most detrimental “persons” based on presumptions based on our mere silence. While it may be true that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, it’s also true that anything you don’t say can and will be used against you in a court of equity.
More, in a court of equity, I strongly suspect that the plaintiff is not suing me (the man)—the plaintiff is instead suing one of my alleged “persons” (a party to an alleged or implied relationship).
Therefore, I suspect that if a defendant could accurately determine the exact “person” that the plaintiff or prosecutor was suing/charging, and if the defendant could effectively and expressly deny ever having voluntarily agreed to enter into a relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor to play that particular “person,” then burden of proving the existence of the relationship and the defendant’s status as “person-party” to that relationship would be placed on the plaintiff/prosecutor. In some instances, the plaintiff-prosecutor might be able to prove that relationship (and your status as “person-party” to that relationship) did, in fact, exist.
But, if my notions about person are roughly correct, I’d bet that at least 90% of the time, the plaintiff/prosecutor could not prove the existence of the underlying relationship and/or the defendant’s voluntary consent to assume the obligations of “person” in that alleged relationship.
• Again, this is all conjecture. Take it all with salt.
This conjecture could be fundamentally mistaken and is certainly incomplete. However, for the moment, the “insights” in this article still resonate with me as something that appear (roughly) valid and vital.
It may well be that if you can control your “person(s),” you might once again become free.