“PERSONS or other animals” in Wisconsin statutes

11 Dec

"Persons" are "animals"?? [courtesy Google Images]

“Persons” are “animals”??
[courtesy Google Images]

If you follow this blog, you know that I’m somewhat obsessed with demonstrating that: 1) the government has defined all men and women to be “animals”; 2) by defining us as “animals,” government deprives us of our most important rights; 3) that this deprivation of rights constitutes a violation of our Freedom of Religion and an act of genocide against the American people.  (See, and especially,

I’ve also presented inferential evidence that the word “consumer” may signify an “animal”.

So, I’m delighted to have received the following email which presents evidence that even the word “person” signifies an “animal”–at least in Wisconsin. But I’ll bet that, as more people research the statutes in their own state, they’ll find that “person” = “animal” in other states, probably most states, maybe all states.

If it turns out to be true that the word “person” usually signifies an “animal” in state or federal law, it will be even more evidence that a spiritual war is being waged by gov-co against the American people.

Here’s the email:

Dear Alfred,

I re-listened to you on angela’s talkshoe call from last April 11th….about “man and other animals“… I looked up Wisconsin Statutes and found this:
Wis. Stats. Chapter 94 Plant Industry
94.67 (12) “Environment” includes water, air, land and all plants and persons and other animals living in or on the water, air or land and the interrelationships which exist among them.
Wis. Stats. Chapter 941 Crimes – Public Health & Safety
941.327 ….in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in persons or other animals;
or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals;….
1919 Wis. Stats. – page 1312
The term “insecticide” as used in sections 1494-100 to 1494-10w, inclusive, shall include any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects which may infest vegetation, man or other animals, or households, or be present in any environment whatsoever.
In the 1919 statutes, they still used the term “man” but it’s completely disappeared from the current statutes…..with only “person” used…
I am currently under three criminal counts of “simulating legal process” for which the DA has offered a ‘deferred’ something….he did not yet say that I will be required to plea, but I’m sure that’s part of it (had 1-1/2 hour pre-trial meeting with him– he’s a talker and he’s running for judge).  When the use of “person” in statutes was raised…he responded that “person” is just gender-neutral….implying it can mean man or woman.
I would like to impugn the whole Wis Stats system due to the two above statements equating animals and man.
We do not eat men/woman. . .  last I checked.  I have a book on cannibalism that took place on a ship lost at sea and how the case was handled. . . very serious matter.
I’d like to bring “persons and other animals” in as an admission. . . .
I read through your suit on your web site. . . .
Has any one used “man or other animals” in any recent cases?
Thank you. . . .
Hi Judy,
Thanks very much for your research.
I know that a few people have tried to use the “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) line of defense, but I don’t know of anyone besides myself who’s used that line of defense successfully.
But that’s not necessarily a surprise.  The “man or other animals” issue is so explosive that if it’s raised early enough in a confrontation with the “authorities,” they may just drop the case rather than risk having the issue go before a jury and/or force government to defend defining people as “animals” in  a public forum.  Thus, there may be other victories, but they won’t be recorded in case law if the case is simply dropped rather than prosecuted.
In the end, “man or other animals” or “persons or other animals” isn’t a “legal” defense, so much as a “political” defense.  It’s a little like having photos of the prosecutor having sex with a goat.  Not wanting those photos to be released in court to the body politic, the prosecutor may simply dismiss a case.  Similarly, not wanting the public to see evidence of the government’s determination to treat us all like right-less “animals,” if you raise the “man or other animals” or “person or other animals” defense, the case may simply disappear.
But if your case doesn’t disappear and you have to go to court, you’d better be able to clearly explain the “person or other animals” grammar, meaning and its spiritual significance in terms that the jury can understand.  If you can do that, I’m convinced you can win.
In your own case, the prosecutor has already tried to deceive you by claiming “person” is just a gender-neutral term.  You don’t necessarily have to fight him on that issue.  Just ask him to stipulate in writing or on the record that “person” includes a man or woman made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and endowed by his/her Creator with certain unalienable Rights as per the “Declaration of Independence”.
If he’s willing to make that stipulation, you should have all the rights you ever dreamed of and his prosecution will probably fail.
On the other hand, if  the prosecutor refuses to stipulate that you’re a woman made in God’s image, etc., then you should hammer him hard with a freedom of religion defense knowing that he can’t withstand that line of defense–if you are a strong advocate.
Thanks again for your important research–it is a very important find.  Those who can find similar evidence in their own state’s statutes and codes that “persons” are presumed to be “animals” will be enormously strengthened if they care to resist government oppression.  I.e., if you can successfully argue that you are not an “animal,” then you should not be subject to any laws that 1) apply to “persons” and 2) presume “persons” to be “animals”.

Tags: , , , , , ,

21 responses to ““PERSONS or other animals” in Wisconsin statutes

  1. Martens

    December 11, 2013 at 8:47 PM

    The claim that the government had anything to do with defining man as an animal is refuted with a minimum of research. If you look up the words, you will find the definition of “animal” already encompasses the definition of “man” and has done so for longer than the United States has been in existence.

    A thorough investigation makes it clear that “man or other animals” is entirely compatible with man being made in God’s image. Nearly every dictionary includes one or more definitions of “animal” that fit the bill. This is because “animal” originally came from the Latin word “anima”, meaning breath or life, which obviously applies to man.

    Concerning “person” in US law, let’s have a look at article 2, section 1 of the Constitution:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    So apparently not every llama or other zoological specimen can be President of the United States, only those who are natural born citizens, at least 35 of age, etc.

    • Eric Hargaden

      December 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

      “this Constitution” was never Adopted

  2. Judy Kay

    December 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM

    My online dictionary (Mac) says this under the term ‘animal’: any such living organism other than a human being…

  3. Mike

    December 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM

    7.Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

    For your collection of uses of the term “man or other animals”

    • Mike

      December 12, 2013 at 7:06 AM


      We don’t. Satanists are atheists. We see the universe as being indifferent to us, and so all morals and values are subjective human constructions.

      Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.”

      Satan to us is a symbol of pride, liberty and individualism, and it serves as an external metaphorical projection of our highest personal potential. We do not believe in Satan as a being or person.


      No. We are atheists. The only people who perform sacrifices are those who believe in supernatural beings who would consider a sacrifice to be some form of payment for a request or form of worship. Since we do not believe in supernatural beings there is no reason for a Satanist to make a sacrifice of any sort.

      Conclusion Satanist = Atheists = Government.

  4. Jetlag

    December 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

    animal – any living thing that is not a plant

    So for “man or other animals” read: “man or other living things that are not plants”.

    Oxford Dictionary:

    animal – a living organism which feeds on organic matter…

    So for “man or other animals” read: “man or other living organisms which feed on organic matter”.

    Black’s Law Dictionary:

    animal – any animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion….

    So for “man or other animals” read: “man or other animate beings which are endowed with the power of voluntary motion”.

    Et cetera, and so on.

    • Judy Kay

      December 11, 2013 at 11:37 PM

      Bouvier’s (1856)
      ANIMAL, property. A name given to every animated being endowed with the power of voluntary motion. In law, it signifies all animals except those of the him, in species.

      Noah Webster (1806)
      Animal, a being with an organized body, endowed with life, sensation, and spontaneous motion.

      Ballantine’s 3rd (1930)
      animal. In law, all animal life other than man.



      ß 1 Definitions
      Etymologically speaking, the word “animal”comprehends all living creatures, whether brutish or human. However, in the language of the law, the word “animal” is used to mean all animal life other than humans and signifies an inferior or irrational sentient being, generally, though not necessarily, possessed of the power of self-motion.

      In many statutes where the word “animal” is employed it has been taken to include every living brute creature. However, in other statutes, the word animal has been used to mean a mammal as distinguished from a bird, reptile, or other nonmammal.

      ß 3 Generally
      Animals are generally regarded as personal property.

      ß 5 Indicia of ownership
      Mere documentary title is not conclusive of ownership of an animal. A Certificate of registration creates only prima facie presumption of title which can be rebutted by other competent evidence of actual ownership of a dog.

  5. Judy Kay

    December 11, 2013 at 11:58 PM

    In Florida Statutes, it’s…
    …living human beings or other animals;
    humans or other animals,

    • Jim Madison

      December 21, 2013 at 11:51 PM

      Hi Judy,
      & “God” said, let’s (let us) make a human in “our” image.? I think human is an appropriate word when describing something(s) deplorable, ruthless, barbarian,etc., like in “human events” as described in the Statute of 1776.

  6. Judy Kay

    December 12, 2013 at 12:09 AM

    In Ohio Revised Code:
    …persons, or other animals…
    …humans or other animals…
    …human beings and other animals…
    …human beings or other animals…

  7. Lyndon

    December 12, 2013 at 12:27 AM

    Alfred: Why do you fret so much over Statues and Codes? Who cares what they write? Whatever they write doesn’t apply to you and me anyway. Just be a man and forget about their crap.

  8. Martens

    December 12, 2013 at 12:28 AM

    Ecclesiastes 3

    18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

    19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

    20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

  9. Adask

    December 12, 2013 at 2:05 AM

    Solomon was hugely overrated. I see him as largely a fool. His text concerning man and beasts/animals as equals is absolutely correct, if, as he says “All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” If Solomon is right in that statement, there is no second life, no eternal after-life, no Heaven or Hell. You die and you turn to dust and are no more.

    But if the Christian faith is true and there’s a eternal after-life in Heaven reserved for the good and an eternal after life reserved for the bad, man and beasts are not the same. The beasts/animals will die and simply cease to exist. The men made in God’s image will also die, but having souls will be blessed to go to Heaven or damned to go to Hell.

    I believe in the Christian faith. Therefore, I reject Solomon’s notion that man and beasts/animals are equal.

    • Jetlag

      December 12, 2013 at 5:36 AM

      @Adask “If Solomon is right in that statement, there is no second life, no eternal after-life, no Heaven or Hell. You die and you turn to dust and are no more.”

      This is your supposition, which you are adding to scripture.

      The author of Ecclesiastes tells us “all go unto one place”, meaning both man and other beasts die to earthly existence and return to dust. This is perfectly consistent with a subsequent life after death for man. He does not state or imply that man is “no more”, as you claim.

      There is no conflict between Ecclesiastes and the Christian faith. Otherwise this book would not be in the Christian Bible.

      • Adask

        December 12, 2013 at 6:41 AM

        As any fool should be able to see, I’m not adding anything to scripture. I’m taking what appears to me to be the logical implications of Solomon’s statements, and extending them to what I regard as their irrational conclusions. I’m doing this in hopes that someone other than myself might not only see that the conclusions were irrational, but also therefore reject both the conclusions and then the premises (Solomon’s statements) as irrational.

        If all animals and men go to the same place, then either we all die and turn to dust and are gone forever, or we all go to an eternal afterlife.

        I don’t believe we all (men and animals) go to an eternal afterlife. An eternal afterlife for dogs and cats, for example, strikes me as unfair. So far as I know, those animals have no comprehension of the Ten Commandments or whatever concepts of faith are required to believe in the Christ. Nevertheless, are the animals (in their pristine ignorance) ineligible for Hell and guaranteed a place in Heaven no matter what?

        Where’s the fairness in sending a dog or a cat to Hell when that creature was never capable of knowing about or having faith in the Christ?

        On the other hand, if we’re going to let every dog and cat go to Heaven because they know nothing of sin or the Christ, what me? I guarantee that I’m at least a moral as the average dog, so shouldn’t I also get a free pass into Heaven?

        Are you suggesting that dogs (who spend their lives just eating, defecating, and standing in line to have sex with any bitch that’s in heat; but have no concept of sin and merrily murder cats, rabbits and in some cases, cows) are going to Heaven for sure, even though they have no awareness of or faith in the Christ?

        Are you suggesting that all of the amoeba that cause dysentery on earth will also go to Heaven? Will the amoeba become eternal? Will they be free to cause dysentery among the saints and the angles? What about God, Himself? Will he sometimes get a dose of the trots caused by the eternal amoeba that are allowed to enter Heaven?

        What about viruses of the sort that allegedly cause AIDS? Like man and other animals, will those virus also go to Heaven? If so, will we need heavenly condoms in the next life? If so, how much will they cost? How will we pay for them?

        And if all of these animals are going to an eternal afterlife without any concept of sin or Christ, why do you and I have to read the Bible and dance through a seemingly endless series of biblical hurdles to ensure that we get to Heaven and avoid Hell? I mean, if a dog can spend its earthly life eating, defecating, making as many puppies as possible and killing cats, rabbits and cows–and still get into Heaven–why can’t I do the same? How come I can’t just eat, sleep, defecate, and screw my neighbors wife whenever she’s in heat and still hope for salvation? If dogs can do it, why not me? Why not you, for that matter?

        If it’s true that we’re all going to the same place after die, why is mankind held to a higher spiritual standard in this life and threatened with eternal damnation while the animals are not?

        If you’re going to tell me that dogs, cats and amoebae are just naturally good, or some such, then why didn’t the Christ appear as a “naturally good” dog who was sure to go to Heaven rather than an imperfect man who, in his last moments, doubted that he would be saved (“Father, Father, why have You forsaken me?”)?

        So far as I know the idea of equivalence between man and animals is unknown to any recognized variety of the Jewish or Christian faiths. I have belabored the stupidity of Solomon’s remarks in order to illustrate that those remarks appear to contradict fundamental principles of the Jewish and then Christian faiths.

        When they talk about Solomon being the world’s wisest man, I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or a slur. If he was really so smart, why’d he screw up his life, his monarchy, and the nation of Israel? Why’d he have scores of wives (including foreign wives)? You gotta be nuts to have a dozen wives and Solomon had several score.

        I sometimes think that calling Solomon world’s wisest man is a little calling 4′ tall dwarf a giant since he “towers” 3″ over the next tallest dwarf. Was Solomon really all that wise, or was he (regrettably) merely the best that this species can produce?

      • Yartap

        December 12, 2013 at 1:27 PM

        PER (prep).
        Latin definition: as in, as like, on account of, by means of, during, through, in relation to, in connection with; (i.e.: Per-son: as like son, by means of son, through son.).

        PERSON (n.).
        By Latin definition of persona “human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,” originally “mask, false face,” such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as “related to” Latin personare “to sound through” (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), “but the long o makes a difficulty ….” Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.

        The sons of man and the sons of God have been replaced by the government’s “persons” (as like government’s sons by way of fictional mask). Person equates into “Man and other animals” or “persons and other animals.” Government controls and claim persons; and God controls and claim men.

        Animal is not found in the Bible, only “beast,” “creature,” and “soul” (Strong’s H:5315).

        In Strong’s, Lev. 24:18 uses both Hebrew definitions #5315 AND #929 to describe the first term “beast” in the sentence. One does not use just one definition, but rather both at the same time to describe the word, beast. But the “beast for beast” part in the verse describes the two words “beast” as #*5315 (asterisk 5315 – which “calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word(s) is changed for some other in the Revised Version.”). So, we are at a lose to know the true words used for the word, beast.

    • Tony

      December 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      Solomon was using hyperbole and in context, the preeminence that man lacks over beast is that each equally share in that they die and return to the dust. Personally, I find it to be a poor rendering of Scripture to wrest the passage from its context and on that basis concludes that Solomon fully equates man and beast.

      Also, I personally do not see that Solomon was hugely overrated. I rather see that he was misunderstood.

      Proverbs has some good stuff.

      • Jim Madison

        December 22, 2013 at 12:10 AM

        Tony, I understand it the same as you. Solomon sums it ALL up in the end of that book. Without the Eternal “God” being # 1 in our heart & mind, everything else is empty / vain. With him, everything that was empty becomes full. How tragic though that Solomon himself failed in the end of his life,i.e., quit practicing what he preached, did a 180. He became an abomination in the eyes of The Eternal “God.” So, being wise as he was is not the answer either. It is the end result that matters in all things. That’s what I believe anyway.

  10. Judy Kay

    December 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

    Listen to this call, which tells how MetLife has an arm called MetLivestock with a cattle code…..and, how they use our court case data to generate funds….it is too unbelievable but fits right in with ‘man’ being classed as ‘animal’…….Carol Kiehn has stumbled onto the court’s dark enterprise….through third-party court website databases which use court case numbers to create tax warrants and other mischief…..

  11. Paul

    February 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM

    Ecclesiastes 3:18 refers to men being beasts. Perhaps then there is a biblical basis for governments viewing man the same as an animal. What are your thoughts on Ecc 3:18 ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s