Re: Office of the Person

>Office of the Person
>
>The official state office known as "Person"
>This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you
>spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest
>of your life.
>The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word
>which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than
>human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S.
>Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
>One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section
>listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the
>statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this
>excerpt:
>In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
>hereof, where the context will permit:
>(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
>(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
>(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
>associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts,
>business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other
>groups or combinations.
>NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
>THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Why do you think a man or woman is not an "individual" (and therefore
a person)? Why do you think a married couple (man and woman) is
not a group or combination of individuals (and therefore a person)?

Why do you think a Sovereign individual is not an "individual"
(and therefore a person)? When you're talking about the "plain meaning
of words", it's pretty obvious that a Sovereign individual is
a type of individual, and therefore an individual.

Gordon L. Burditt

	#1
Gordon Burditt	Re: Office of the Person >Office of the Person > >The official state office known as "Person" >This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you >spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest >of your life. >The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word >which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than >human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. >Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425. >One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section >listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the >statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this >excerpt: >In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part >hereof, where the context will permit: >(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa. >(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter. >(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, >associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, >business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other >groups or combinations. >NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- >THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!! Why do you think a man or woman is not an "individual" (and therefore a person)? Why do you think a married couple (man and woman) is not a group or combination of individuals (and therefore a person)? Why do you think a Sovereign individual is not an "individual" (and therefore a person)? When you're talking about the "plain meaning of words", it's pretty obvious that a Sovereign individual is a type of individual, and therefore an individual. Gordon L. Burditt