“In person”–or “in the flesh”?

23 May

Frog Legs [courtesy Google Images]

Frog Legs
[courtesy Google Images]

•  I received the following email from a reader (I added the bold highlights):


“Hi Al,

“I recently had an interesting experience in court that I would like to share with you.

“In a nut shell, I gummed up the works with the judge by stating that I was present “in the flesh.” She was literally tossing and turning in her seat, visibly frustrated and was searching for ways to regain control of the situation.

“I believe that the judge was trying to find a way to have me make an appearance in court “in person” or by representing myself (my self?), so that she could administer the trust account.

I said that I was not representing any artificial persons, that I do not make appearances in court by paper and that I was present “in the flesh.”

“Perhaps by me stating that I was present in the flesh, it had some effect which rendered her unable to proceed.

“If I am the beneficiary of the trust account, am present during a court hearing and state that I am not representing any artificial persons, maybe that eliminates the administrator/executor role and confines the judge to being the trustee.

“Whatever the case, I believe that she had activated a duress alarm and then said “Sir, leave my room now.” I saw the bailiff’s hand motioning for me to come his way. I didn’t want to risk arrest, so I did leave at that time.

“What are your thoughts on this?



  • The core of my reply to Jeff follows.  However, I’ve added more  to my original reply because, the more I think about it, the more I think Jeff may have uncovered something profound:


Trying a new tactic in court is like poking a dead frog leg with a live electrode.  You may see the frog leg twitch, but you’ll probably not know exactly why it happened—and the frog sure won’t tell you.

Likewise, you may have said something strange to the judge and she might’ve over-reacted.  Maybe the judge is a little goofy.

But odds are, you stumbled onto a “tactic” that the court couldn’t easily deal with.  Insofar as you stood you ground and didn’t “cave” when the judge tried to get around your statement that you were there “in the flesh,” it’s evidence that your discovery may be important.

Nevertheless, so far, all we have is an anecdote about a single instance where something surprising happened.

What we need is to see if several others, trying the same tactic in other courts, experience the same result.  Then, we’d have some confirmation that your tactics were valid in courts other than that of your particular judge.

We also need a transcript or recording of your conversation with the judge.  There’s always a chance that whatever you said that caused the judge to remove you from the court (and seemingly dismiss your case) might be something other than what you remember.  You may be attributing your apparent victory to saying “in the flesh” when the judge was actually reacting to something else that you said that you’ve so far overlooked as insignificant.

We “patriots” have victories in court from time to time, but whenever we do, the courts never tell us why we won.  We’re left to infer why we won.  That’s just the nature of our struggle with the duplicitous court system.  Sometimes our inferences are correct, sometimes not.


•  In any case, after some consideration, I begin to think that your suspicion that there’s an important difference between “in person” and “in the flesh” may be important.

At first glance, I’d suspect that “in person” typically implicates a fiction.

To say “in person” is incomplete and ambiguous.  Maybe, when we consent to appear “in person,” we ought to ask “in what person” am I appearing?

For example, if I went to masquerade dressed up as Batman, in what “person” did I attend?  In my own “person”?  Or in the “person” of the fictional Batman?

If I agreed that I appeared “in person,” would the courts construe that statement to mean I’m present in my own flesh-and-blood capacity as a natural man?  Or, by agreeing to have appeared “in person” or to have made a “personal appearance” (which virtually everyone supposes to mean I appear in my own flesh-and-blood) am I really presumed by the courts to have appeared in the fictional “person” of some other entity?

The question is whether all “persons” are fictions.

I’m about 95% confident that the answer is Yes, but I can’t yet prove that belief.

If all “persons” are fictions, then to appear in court “in person” may mean that the flesh-and-blood man has implicitly agreed to appear in some fictional capacity as some entity other than his natural being.  If you agree to appear in a fictional capacity, you have no standing to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights in that fictional capacity.  (Fictions are lies.  God created no lies. God gives no unalienable rights to fictions/lies).

If appearing “in person” really means “to appear in some ‘person’ other than your natural self,” then appearing “in person,” or to appear in any “personal” capacity might achieve exactly the opposite effect of what most of us would expect.

I.e., we generally assume that making a “personal appearance” or appearing “in person” in court means that we appear in our flesh-and-blood capacity as a “man”.  But, what if that assumption were false?  What if by appearing “in person” or by making a “personal appearance” we were presumed by the court to have consented to appear in the fictional “person” of someone else?

On the other hand, by specifying that you appeared “in the flesh,” did you refute the court’s presumption of your “personality“?

It may be that the presumption that we each appear as a “person” (as a fiction; as some entity other than our natural selves) in court might be the fundamental presumption on which the court and “this state” bases their authority over us.

Some of us have thought for years that the courts presume that when we appear, we appear as the “representative” of some other fictional entity like “ALFRED N ADASK”.

Would it be more precise and correct to suppose that the courts don’t presume the man “Alfred Adask” to represent the fiction “ALFRED N ADASK,” but instead presume that the man (“Adask”) appears “in the person of” the fiction “ADASK”?

I’m not sure that there’s any significant difference in meaning between appearing to “represent” the fiction “ADASK” (perhaps as “ADASK’s” fiduciary) and appearing “in the person of” the fiction “ADASK”.  If there is a difference, that difference may be subtle or even unimportant.

That larger point may be that your statement that you were there “in the flesh” (and therefore, not in any fictional “person”?) may have defeated the court’s primary presumption.  If so, you may have stumbled onto one of the most important insights as to how the courts exploit us.

Perhaps, it’s unimportant whether I’m presumed by the courts to “represent” the fictional “ADASK” or presumed to appear “in the person of” the fictional “ADASK”.  Perhaps, the most important point is that by declaring myself to appear “in the flesh” I defeat the presumption that I’ve appeared “in the person of” the fiction “ADASK” since that fiction has no flesh.  I.e., if I have flesh, I can’t be a fiction.  If I claim to appear “in the flesh,” the court cannot maintain the presumption that I’m appearing “in the person of” a fictional entity.


•  But, on second thought, suppose I followed your example and also denied that I am fiduciary for or otherwise represent the fictional “ADASK”?

Would I thereby close both “doors” by means of which the court might presume my relationship to the fictional “ADASK” and the court’s jurisdiction over the man “Adask”?

Get that?  Maybe there are two ways for the court to presume that the man “Adask” can be tried as “ADASK”:


1) Because the man “Adask” has assented to appear as fiduciary or other representative of the fictional “ADASK”; and,

2) Because the man “Adask” has assented to appear “in the person of” the fictional “ADASK”.


Even though the distinction between those two strategies seems thin, at best, this conjecture makes some sense to me.

I.e., do the courts might have two (more?) bases for presuming that the man “Adask” was entangled with the fictional defendant “ADASK”.  Having two separate strategies to create the damning presumption that the man “Adask” could be somehow tried as the fiction “ADASK” is exactly the kind of diabolical brilliance I’ve come to expect from the courts.  In the unlikely event that any defendant recognized and expressly denied the presumption that the man “Adask” appeared in court as fiduciary or other representative for the fiction “ADASK,” the court could shift to its “plan B” wherein it presumed that the man “Adask” had assented to appear “in the person of” or “as” the fictional “ADASK”.

But in your case, Jeff, you may have denied both bases for the possible presumption that the man “Jeff” 1) represented; and/or 2) appeared “in the person of” the fictional “JEFF”.

By expressly denying that you appeared in a fiduciary capacity, you seemingly defeated the presumption that your represented the fictional “JEFF”.

But, then, by also declaring that you appeared “in the flesh” you may have refuted the secondary presumption that you appeared “in the person of” the fictional “JEFF”.

Apparent result?

The judge bounced you—and the case against you—out of court.


•  The previous  analysis is only conjecture.  My “conclusions” are, for now, merely temporary and subject to change, reversal, or outright rejection.

But I’m intrigued by a couple of implications:

What happens if you’re driving, you’re stopped by a traffic cop, he asks to see your license and you tell him that you don’t need one because:  1) you don’t represent a fiction; and 2) you are driving “in the flesh”?

Odds are, you’ll get your melon thumped and/or spend a night in the slammer.

But what if you could later tell the judge that you’d given the officer notice (maybe on a piece of paper?) that you didn’t represent any fictions and that you were driving “in the flesh”?

Would your traffic ticket be dismissed?

Is it possible that an officer who learns that you don’t represent fictions and are “in the flesh” gives you only a warning rather than a ticket or a good thumping?

What happens if you informed the IRS that 1) you don’t represent fictions and 2) you always appear “in the flesh”?

What would a divorce court do with a “respondent” who informed the court that: 1) he didn’t represent fictions and 2) always appeared “in the flesh”?

Inquiring minds . . . .

In any case, it’s too early to say that any of my conjecture is valid.  But I’m going to post the text of your email and my response on my blog and see what my readers think.

In the meantime, the more I think about it, the more I think you may have made a very important discovery.

Thanks very much for sharing your experience.






Posted by on May 23, 2014 in Fictions, Person


Tags: , , ,

36 responses to ““In person”–or “in the flesh”?

  1. cynthia

    May 23, 2014 at 11:24 PM

    i can tell you that there is another here on “Mary’s Land” that time and again self expressed as “fully present as a living man” and was fully ‘successful’ case after case, in most instances separately with ‘creditors’ i.e. ‘banks’ via ‘administrative process’ “without court” as well… via ‘conditional acceptance’ standing.

    • Damon

      May 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM

      I’m intrigued by this one – can you please elaborate…

  2. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    May 24, 2014 at 12:10 AM

    great article Alfred. Kinda ties the “person” thing together as well as the “representing” (which I was aware of), real key, I suppose, is just how smart and aware the judge is of all this legal bullshit. Some of the judges seem dumber than a rock, while others, as in this case, seem to get it right off the bat. I don’t go into ‘courts’, as I am not within their jurisdiction, but if I was ever dragged there illegally by the corporation, this is excellent information to add to my arsenal. : )

  3. Toland

    May 24, 2014 at 12:21 AM

    I agree that “in the person of” is a correct reading.

    Or, “in the character of”, since “person” derives from “persona” which is the Latin word for a theatrical mask. So yeah, to appear in person means to act (that is, perform) in (a fiduciary) character of some sort.

    I don’t think the all-caps version of your name is a factor here. So far, the evidence that this is not simply an alternate spelling of your properly capitalized name is virtually nonexistent.

    • Henry

      May 24, 2014 at 1:56 PM

      ‘In the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that “in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of . . . counsel . . . .” The right is currently codified in 28 U.S.C. 1654.’

      — Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 1975

      • Toland

        May 24, 2014 at 2:38 PM

        I see what you mean. The cited Judiciary Act of 1789 talks about handling your case “personally” or “by the assistance of counsel” as if these are the only choices.

        Meanwhile it ignores the get-out-of-jail-free “in the flesh” option! A clear example of the infamously weasely “false dichotomy” ploy.

        “A false dichotomy occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives. In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two opposite options are mutually exclusive and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.”

        — Philosophy Index

  4. Pat Fields

    May 24, 2014 at 1:50 AM

    I can’t more enthusiastically recommend folks learn Common Law Due Process of resolving differences between a … man or woman … arguing their causes with another … man or woman.

    This is what Jeff intimated at court, which is what set the ‘Black Robe’ all atwitter. In a ‘Court of Record’, the only ‘judge’ is the Jury and the only ‘finding’ is its Verdict. The ‘Magistrate’ is strictly confined to the role of Referee-Witness, Bound to the Letter of The Law.

    Folks can begin their studies at Bill Thornton’s website (best course to follow for structural framework) at … or listen to Karl Lentz’s (Bill was his mentor) YouTube videos starting with then ’57 to 100 combined’ and so forth.

    Karl’s method of extreme succinctness may not be as ‘intellectually rewarding’ as Bill’s more extensive paperwork, but the former is admirably supported by the logic that Spartan sentence composition leaves no room for collateral attack whatsoever, plus it’s very easy to remain perfectly constant in one’s prime objective.

  5. palani

    May 24, 2014 at 3:10 AM

    Shylock was permitted to take a pound of flesh in the Merchant of Venice so long as no blood was spilled.

    “Shylock is on the verge of cutting into Antonio when Portia suddenly reminds him that the bond stipulates a pound of flesh only, and makes no allowances for blood. She urges Shylock to continue collecting his pound of flesh, but reminds him that if a drop of blood is spilled, then he will be guilty of conspiring against the life of a Venetian citizen and all his lands and goods will be confiscated by the state. “

    • californian

      March 24, 2015 at 12:04 AM

      Not a hair a less, not a hair more, love that play…

  6. Harry

    May 24, 2014 at 8:10 AM

    According to Webster’s 1828 “In person” means BY one’s self; with bodily presence; not by representative.

    “by” in Webster’s third (3) definition is: through, or with, denoting the AGENT, means, instrument or cause; as, a city is destroyed BY fire. … This use answers to that of the Latin per, through denoting a passing, ACTING, AGENCY, or instrumentality.

    Could it be that when one appears in person that they are appearing BY (i.e. through OR with denoting the AGENT?

    “In person” means BY or through one’s self NOT simply “one’s self.” Is it one can appear in/by/through one’s self OR they can simply appear one’s self??????

    Could appearing “In the flesh” eliminate the appearing “by” or “through” one’s self as an agent?

    “In” signifies by or through.

    • Adask

      May 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM

      Government is constantly changing the meaning of definitions. If that weren’t so, we wouldn’t have had 9 editions of Black’s Law Dictionary since the late 1800s.

      The meanings of words found in the 1828 Websters are helpful to understand how meanings evolve over time. The the 1828 Websters definitions are not controlling. We need to understand what “person” and “in person” mean to the courts today.

      If I understand correctly, back in the day, a Greek “persona” was a false face (like the Comedy and Tragedy masks) worn by actors in Greek plays. Insofar as that’s true, it suggests that from the beginning the word “persona” (and probably “person”) indicated that the man wearing such mask or persona was acting in some “person” other than himself.

      The only definition of “in” that I’m familiar with in Black’s Law Diction is “under or subject to”.

      • Henry

        May 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM

        The current definition of “in”, according to Black’s, is “under or based on the law of”.

        So, for the moment at least, “in” means “under” or “on”.

      • Harry

        May 25, 2014 at 6:23 AM

        When in court they call out the name of the plaintiff, let’s say “John Brown.” What if John answered by saying, “My NAME is called John Brown,” If the judge then asks, “Are YOU John Brown?” What if John responds by saying, No, my name is called John Brown, but I am not my name. I am me and when the NAME John Brown is “called out” I will respond? What can I do for the court?

        I believe this is how the Lord answered when they asked Him if he was His name. He simply said, “I am.” I believe it also reads in reference to His birth, “And they called His name Jesus,” not they called Him Jesus.” Is there a difference in saying, “I am John Brown” and saying, “I am me and my name is called John Brown?”

      • californian

        March 24, 2015 at 12:13 AM

        Adask, take a closer look at Black’s Law. Blacks is not a definitions of words, but terms and phrases. One should not mistake Blacks for a Dictionary of words.
        The government is constantly changing definitions of the terms of American Jurisprudence .

  7. palani

    May 24, 2014 at 8:36 AM

    To know ‘person’ you have to read and comprehend Hobbes Leviathan chapter XVI

    Discussion of person involves discussing
    1) an action
    2) a word
    3) representation

    You will find many definitions concerning ‘person’. Hobbes is the only one I have found that nails the concept down to specifics.

    If you don’t want to appear then 1) avoid that action 2) don’t say or write anything 3) don’t accept representation.

    Courts are good at conjuring up appearances. Conjuring (and black robes) (and being seated 4 feet above the floor) is part of the dark arts. Here is etymology online’s concept of conjuring:

    Magical sense is c.1300, for “constraining by spell” a demon to do one’s bidding.

    Maybe if forced into an appearance in court you should specify that you are not a demon? Bring come holy water and your bible and exorcise the court then and there.

  8. Jethro

    May 24, 2014 at 10:21 AM

    I’ve witnessed a similar scenario in court. A friend was in court waiting for his case to be called when I pointed out a large red sign on the swinging door to the bar that read: “ATTORNEYS ONLY” [beyond this point]. When “his” case was called the exchange went like this:

    Friend: I just noticed the sign here says “ATTORNEYS ONLY”. I’m not an attorney and I don’t represent anybody.
    Judge: You’re a pro se person, so you may come up.
    F: No, I don’t represent myself.
    J: Oh, you don’t?
    F: No, I’m just here. Just myself.
    J: [pause] So you’re not representing yourself, is that correct?
    F: Right, I’m just here, myself, but I don’t represent myself.
    J: Why are you here if you’re not representing yourself?
    P: Well, I have motions, but I don’t represent myself. It’s just me.
    J: Who represents you?
    P: Nobody. It’s just me.
    J: So what does “just me” want with this court? [the room full of attorneys laugh]

    The next five minutes consisted primarily of the “judge” berating my friend, then threatening him with sanctions (pointing out that included incarceration) if he filed anything there again. He then concluded with this tidbit before kicking him out:

    J: Your pleadings are nonsensical — which I think you’ve done on purpose, by the way. See ya!

    The “nonsensical pleadings” Mr. Judge complained about was an inquiry as to whether the court was acting in a sovereign capacity, or some sort of private or proprietary capacity. “Nonsensical” my ass. My friend never went forward beyond the “ATTORNEYS ONLY” sign and was kicked out after the “judge” threw his temper tantrum.

    It’s more evidence that the courts of “this state” cannot proceed without entirely LEGAL FICTIONS involved.

  9. Roger

    May 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    The thing about “in the flesh” is that it’s a non-standard response. Yet, on first glance, it could be legally valid.

    Thusly, the judge is unable to either proceed using the standard script nor legitimately rule you in contempt. With so many easier cases waiting in the cue, the judge decides you’re not worth the bother and cuts you loose. Basically, you’ve successfully “trolled” the court by throwing a wrench in the works.

    This is the most likely explanation for why “in the flesh” produced the result it did.

  10. EarlatrOregon

    May 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM



    Is it possible that an officer who learns
    that you don’t represent fictions
    and are “in the flesh”
    gives you only a warning
    rather than a ticket or a good thumping?

    What happens if you informed the IRS that
    1) you don’t represent fictions
    and 2) you always appear “in the flesh”?

    What would a divorce court do
    with a “respondent” who informed the court that:
    1) he didn’t represent fictions
    and 2) always appeared “in the flesh”?

    Earl writes:

    couldn’t the court proceed based on rules/regulations
    that you signed a paper/Document,
    agreeing to rules/regulations?


    • Adask

      May 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      It depends on the particular “paper”. If you, and you alone, signed it, it’s not a contract–it’s a pledge. If you’re the only one who signed it, there was no “meeting of the mindS” as in a two-party contract. The “paper” that bears only your signature means whatever YOU say it means. If you wrote “OR” but explain that you meant that to mean “The State of Oregon,” who can deny that claim?

      I strongly suspect that the court can proceed only with your assent. As long as you don’t know enough to express an effective dissent or lack the courage to dissent, the court can probably proceed based on a piece of used toilet paper.

      On the other hand, if you know what you’re doing and have some gonads, you may be able to refute whatever presumptions (such as you voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction) that the court relies on to proceed.

  11. henry

    May 24, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    From 1996 to 2007 I did not have a driver’s license. I used my conveyance almost every day and put 120,000+ miles on it in that time. Some of that time, the conveyance was not registered as a motor vehicle and did not have a “proper” plate.

    I was a big fan of “The Antishyster” magazine. I was too cautious to directly attack the beast so I, and others, would poke the beast. The beast is so large that it is difficult to see it all at one time. If one man tried something and the beast bit him then we would learn not to poke there. If the beast retreated after being poked then we would learn that too.

    Some of the time I had a BWI (British West Indies) plate that I received in the mail. Other time I had a New Hampshire plate. I learned that if you don’t have anything where the police expect a plate should be, they will pull you over. The BWI plate came with paperwork that would confuse the police so they, in most cases, let me go. Along with the plate I received an international driver’s license from Sao Paulo Brazil. This was not valid without a local “Driver’s License” but police were intimidated by the legal document. I was actually able to rent cars with it. For a few years I printed my own (United Nations) photo ID with a hologram of the planet on it. The New Hampshire plate also came with paperwork to give the police. The deal was that you donate you car to a trust in New Hampshire and they register it and give you a plate and papers saying that you can use the car, get it repaired, and sell the car — but it wasn’t your car. New Hampshire and Tennessee did not have mandatory insurance requirement or inspections. Of the dozen or so times that I was pulled over by a cop, I only received citations on 3 occasions.

    The normal procedure would be that a piece of paper, a citation, would be given to you then you can pay the amount on the citation when you asked for a hearing and if you won, you would get the money back. I sent the citation back with the statement: I received this document which seems to be a legal document but I do not have enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer to it so I am returning it. The court sent it back to me. I sent it back to them with the same statement. This continued for a few cycles before the court wrote that I did not need to pay the amount. The hearing would be on a specific date. I pieced together a 50 page memorandum on the right to travel as compared to the privilege of driving. The essence of the memorandum was that driving is defined as commerce but I was not involved in commerce when using my conveyance to travel on the roads.

    When the court called the case, I was surprised to see that the officer who wrote the citation was not present. The court dismissed the charges. I brought a cop with me who was a friend of one of the beast pokers. The cop asked the judge why the officer was not present and the judge told him that he did not want these issues brought up in his court so he told the officer not to come. As I watched the cases that morning, I noticed the game that was going on. Each case would take two to four minutes and each would end up getting the court between $92.50 and $200. I think the judge made a determination that my case was going to take too long to be cost effective. If anyone has some free time, I recommend watching the court proceedings for a day or so.

    A year later I was stopped by the same cop. I was friendly and said that there was no reason to be disagreeable about the citations and that the judge will make a determination. He told me that he will court even if the judge doesn’t like it. I did the “I don’t have enough knowledge” routine for a few cycles before a court date was set. In court, when my name was called is said nothing but the man next to me stood and said that I was the name called. The court asked me if I was the person that the citation was given to and I said “I don’t have enough knowledge or information to make a responsive answer to the question”. The judge’s eyes almost popped out of his head. We had a discussion on the CASE of the name on the citation and was that a fictitious entity, a real man, or some kind of cestui que trust. We discussed the nature of the charges. The judge asked if I understood the charges and I said no. I asked Were they criminal or civil? He said that anything that I could be fined was criminal. I asked was this case criminal? He said that I was having the benefit of a criminal trial. I asked, if it was a benefit, could I refuse it? He no and that the court was using the rules of criminal procedure for this case. I asked for a trial by jury as prescribed in the state constitution for all criminal cases. He said that that was not available for this kind of trial. I asked how the court determined that this was a criminal case that was different from criminal cases prosecuted under the state constitution. He said because it was quasi-criminal. The judge continued the case because, I think, he did not want the common rabble to see that a commoner can speak language of the priesthood like a lawyer can.

    A month later, a hearing was held in the basement of the police station. Each case before mine started with a man in an orange jumpsuit being brought into the room where he grunted a few times and then marched back to jail. When my case was called I was alone. I realized that with no record and no witnesses and the judge’s lack of knowledge of the state constitution that I was not going to win. So, I decided to get my moneys worth. After 90 minutes of questions and answers he decided that he was going to proceed with the case even though I did not understand the charges against me and found me guilty and told me that I needed to pay the $92.50 fine.

    I filed for a trial de novo. The county judge was confused that although my case was the last case of the day, the court room was not empty. About 20 people that I knew wanted to see the trial. The judge started polling the people in the court of why they were there. The judge was very respectful. For each of my points she said “I can’t rule on that but I will be interested in how the higher court will.” Eventually I was found guilty and I paid the $92.50. To file an appeal, I would need a transcript of the case held at the county level which I was told would cost $350. Then I realized the scam. I could settle for $92.50 or pay $350 in the hopes of not paying $92.50.

    Once I got the New Hampshire plate, I was never pulled over.

  12. Bobby

    May 24, 2014 at 7:53 PM

    A person can be either an artificial person such as a corporation, or a human being, i.e. man, which is defined as an animal (See Title 21 U.S.C.A. Section 321 (g)(i)

    In addition

    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 7 U.S.C. §136-136y
    §136. [FIFRA §2]
    For purposes of this subchapter
    (d) Animal
    The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals…”

    A natural man is not a “person”. The word (person) is a trick word. Public Policy statutes begin “Any person… Never will the statute begin “Any natural living being or artificial person…”.

    It appears that only Common Law courts have authority to deal with flesh and blood beings. If legislative Article 1 courts must presume everyone is a person, or at least represent a person. So, when they are confronted with a living being, they cannot act. Jeff may have found a silver bullet.

  13. gabep1g

    May 24, 2014 at 8:16 PM

    Hello all, Alfred If I’m stopped by a cop/revenue generator, I will try it out, but I will make a small adjustment to the wording, instead of saying I’m driving in the flesh, I think it would be better to say I.m traveling in the flesh, Great Article.


    • Adask

      May 25, 2014 at 12:34 AM

      We’re on a path of discovery. Nobody yet knows what the most effective words or phrases may be. We have an hypothesis, perhaps a genuine insight, and we are trying to find the words that are most effective at expressing that insight. There may be half a dozen different expressions (such as “I’m here in the flesh.”) that might effective. The key is not simply to learn to repeat whatever any one of those expressions says. The key is to fully understand the underlying meaning and be able to explain and argue that meaning if some judge or official challenges your “expression”. I.e., if you declare that you’re in court “in the flesh” and the judge says, “So what?” or “What’s that mean?, you’ll have to be able to explain the underlying meaning with clarity and confidence. If you only parrot the expression (“in the flesh”) but you can’t explain it’s meaning and significance, you could easily be defeated.

      • palani

        May 25, 2014 at 5:54 AM

        @ Adask … “the judge says, “So what?” or “What’s that mean?, you’ll have to be able to explain the underlying meaning with clarity and confidence”

        You might advise the judge to seek legal advice as you are not licensed to do so. If the tables were turned and you were asking questions of the court this is what he would do.

      • gabep1g

        May 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM

        I agree with both reply’s in it’s entirety, It wouldn’t be prudent to just sputter word after word just for the heck of it unless you are able to significantly prove that you are an educated patriot, and even that may not be enough to sway a judge. Most don’t even understanding what a court of record is, a court is a stage where a sovereign conducts his show to convince the rest of the world that he’s right.

  14. Felipe

    May 25, 2014 at 1:35 PM

    I played their game for years, then I challenged the Beast and have been inconvenienced, mistreated, abused, arrested, insulted, etc.

    The watershed event for me came one day that I finally understood I did not have to justify my existence to anyone, and by the same token, none of those in power could do the same.

    I know those that have not reached that point will not get it, because you have not reached the point where: “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.” (Mathew 13:16).

    The great linchpin of this grand charade is the Credit System, it used to be the Monetary System until they changed it to the Credit System.

    You have to comprehend that a man can do what a man can do, regardless of the rightfulness or evilness of the action or inaction.

    Therefore, in order to hold other men accountable for their actions or inaction as a society the rules of conduct had to be invented, otherwise we would keep operating under Natural Law (Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) for a wrong done to you.

    Under the Credit System, the unit of account is a pledge payable into the future, which in itself requires you to operate in equity. Under a Monetary System, the unit of account is of substance, which pays off debts as the transaction is completed, that lets you operate under a system of Law.

    I hated the system when I did not understand it, now I see the necessity of it, except for the fact that the ignorance of the masses lets those with evil intent, ambition, and drive abuse it for their own gain and benefit.

    There is no wiser words than those that I heard from an elderly gentleman when he heard me complaining about how the system was bad and corrupt: “If the Earth was populated by righteous people, there would not be a need for government”.

    So to answer the question, the system is one of Commerce where Men are bound to their fictions of persona to ease the exchange of goods and services. The Usurers have taken advance of the system by issuing the units of exchange at interest, and molding the rules of performance to their benefit.

    Yes, there is a lot of corruption and ignorance, but if you know how the game is played and expose those that are corrupt and both publicly instruct the ignorant, you will have much success in living in Liberty.

  15. Cody

    May 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM

    I think Jeff may have inadvertently “appeared” “In Corpore.”

  16. Bobby

    May 26, 2014 at 10:28 PM

    Another phrase that puts a stop to a trial is “at arms length”. Before entering a plea, get the magistrate to take notice that you are appearing at arms length. If the judge asks what that means, tell him that it means… you are standing on the letter of your rights to conduct business in a formal manner without trusting to no other’s fairness or integrety and not subjet to control or overmastering influences.

    In the expination, the ihe important legal words are “trusting” (which denotes a Trust account), and “fairness” which denotes equity, and “integrety” which denotes dealing with contractual agreements. By using “at arms length” a magistrate cannot enter a plea for you without your consent, because you do your own dealings and you are not a fiduciary. Read the BLACK’s Law Dictinary for the meaning of “at arms length”.

    This is a powerful phrase.

    • Cody

      May 27, 2014 at 2:40 PM

      Very powerful indeed.

  17. SoulSearcher

    May 27, 2014 at 9:36 AM

    I’ve done an extensive study on the word person. (State & federal laws, and all 9 Black’s Law dictionaries) Person means any entity that has rights, obligations and duties. So this can be a flesh and blood human being or any business entity. And this definition applies throughout the country. That’s why the supreme court says corporations are persons. So stay away from calling yourself a person. That basically means anything that can function in any capacity.

    I had a friend go to court and ask if the plaintiff is there. (the state) When no one answered, so he asked if anyone is present who is representing the plaintiff. No one answered again and the prosecuting attorney got up and left. At that point my friend should have said, Well your honor, the case has been dismissed, have a nice day. He didn’t and wound up paying, but that may be another tactic to use. “The state” or “the city” or “the county” doesn’t exist, can’t write a complaint, can’t talk and can’t be cross-examined. There may be boundaries for those fictions, but dirt, vegetation, minerals, water and air can’t appear before the court or do anything. There is only a corporation calling itself the state of …. And they can’t summon you to court for speeding or even killing someone. They can only take you to court if you’ve harmed their company. And in most cases that would be a civil case, not criminal.

    • Cody

      May 27, 2014 at 3:15 PM

      I doubt a “person” can be a flesh and blood man or woman for this reason:

      of nature; person (persona) of civil law. Calvin. Black’s 4th p. 869

  18. Henry

    May 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM

    palani > “You might advise the judge to seek legal advice as you are not licensed to do so. If the tables were turned and you were asking questions of the court this is what he would do.”

    Good answer, because “What’s that mean?” is the wrong question for the judge to ask.

    The right question is “What do YOU mean by that?”

    Likewise, the accused should ask “What do YOU mean by ‘understand’?” when the judge asks if he “understands” the charges against him.

    • henry

      May 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM

      I’ve heard that in legal dealings, the word “understand” is taken to mean “agree” as in we have an understanding. I don’t know if this is true. At the local level I’m pretty sure that most of the “judges” don’t know the difference between colloquial definitions and legal definitions. To become a lowest level “judge”, you don’t need to be an attorney. All that is required is to take three community college classes. The judge needs to speak like he knows what he is talking about so that the common man will be intimidated. Once you challenge that authority by having an intelligent conversation and asking questions about law then it will be obvious that it is all a show as he starts to squirm.

      if you visit a court and watch cases where the defendant does not clearly says that he understands the charges, you will see that the judge say that he can’t proceed until the defendant says yes I understand. That is until it is your turn and you say that you don’t understand. Then the judge will say that’s OK, you don’t need to understand.

      Does anyone have a citation where understand means agree as opposed to comprehend?

  19. citizenquasar

    May 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM

    I remember back in about 1996 when I was attending CLR and I made the same argument. I had to write a couple of affidavits about something and I purposely used “in the flesh.”

  20. l v miller

    August 30, 2014 at 2:50 AM

    Great information! I’m wondering if you are contesting a traffic ticket and it gets as far as you getting to question the officer that cited you, ask the officer if he pulled over a living, breathing human being. Of course he will say yes. Next question would be to ask him why he then wrote the citation to a corporate entity. My ticket was printed out via a hand held device and the form had both small and capital letters except for my name…so the officer saying it was the device that printed the ticket might give him an out. Any thoughts?

    • Adask

      August 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

      You have an interesting and plausible strategy except for two things:

      1) I would not use the word “human” or “human being” to describe myself as I know that it can mean “animal” rather than “man made in God’s image”.

      2) Rather than wait until court to ask the officer those questions, I would pose those questions by Registered Mail to the officer and/or his employer/police-department as soon as possible after I received that ticket/notice. Courtroom appearances are usually sentencing hearings rather than trials. I.e., they’ve already made up their minds that you are guilty and the purported “trial” is usually a sham and merely an opportunity to publicly “find” you guilty. Ideally, you stop ’em before you ever get to court.

      If you’re not already familiar with the “Notice and Right of Inquiry” strategy I’ve previously advanced, read some of the articles on this blog under the heading “Notice“. Pay particular attention to one of my earliest articles “Notice and Right of Inquiry“.


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