Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Useless Statutory definition?

Discuss anything that does not fit in anywhere in the forum

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:03 pm

country_hick wrote:http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5952.html

Title 14: COURT PROCEDURE -- CIVIL

§5952. Definitions
The word "person," wherever used in this chapter, shall be construed to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.


I now know that a person means a person without knowing what "person" means. Could a less useful definition be written?

Your question is very simply answered by looking at
Rules and Principles of Statutory Interpretation.
Though generally unknown outside certain legal and legislative circles, the eight main rules and
principles of statutory interpretation are easily understood and provide for the resolution of any
discrepancy in the content of any statute or statutory definition; to wit:
The principal rules of statutory interpretation are as follows:
(1) An Act must be construed as a whole, so that internal inconsistencies are avoided.

(2)Words that are reasonably capable of only one meaning must be given that meaning
whatever the result. This is called the literal rule.

(3)Ordinary words must be given their ordinary meanings and technical words their technical
meanings, unless absurdity would result. This is the golden rule.

(4)When an Act aims at curing a defect in the law any ambiguity is to be resolved in such a
way as to favor that aim (the mischief rule).

(5)The rule ejusdem generis (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the
same class is followed by general words (as in “cats, dogs, and other animals”), the general
words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to
other domestic animals).

(6)The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of
the other): when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as
exhaustive. For example, “weekends and public holidays” excludes ordinary weekdays.

(7)The rule in pari materia (on the like matter): when a prior Act is found to be “on the like
matter” it can be used as an aid in construing the statute in question . . .

(8)The rule noscitur a sociis (known by its associates): when a word or phrase is of uncertain meaning, it should be construed in the light of the surrounding words . . .
The term that you referenced simply falls within rule 5, which tells us that all of the others that are within that definition are all legal fictions/artificial entities, which shows that the inclusion of the "any person" within that definition is also referring to an legal fiction or artificial entity, because all the others that are included within that definition are all fictional characters.

Shoonra seems to have a rat in his pocket when he says that "We" at the start of his argument ,,because his definition certainly does not include you or me,


Shoonra has been asked for many years to supply a definition of the term "Person" in any statute or code that includes the words man or woman within that definition of the term person,,,,he still has never presented or even attempted to provide such a term,,,but will simply make assertions. And as Palani has pointed out that human includes monster,,,,,,, but of course does not say "man or woman=monster"
Last edited by Nunya_Bizness on Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good evidence.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 time
Have thanks: 45 time

 

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:20 pm

country_hick wrote:
Shoonra wrote:The statutory definition tells you that the legislation applies not only to natural persons but also to juridical persons; that is a useful bit of clarification.

Where did the statutory definition ever talk about natural persons? I only saw it mention artificial persons otherwise known as legal fictions. I dare not assume a person means a natural person unless that is explicitly stated.

I hope that you are not falling for the fallacy that just because the word natural is put in front of the word person that somehow changes the term "person" to mean something that is not artificial.

a rose is a rose by any other name,,,,just because you put yellow, or big, or dead in front of the word rose, that somehow makes that rose not a rose. :roll: :nono:

The "natural person" fallacy perpetuated by the statist's on this forum to get you to believe that by putting the word natural in front of the word person somehow now makes it not a legal fiction is patently erroneous.

I have covered this here http://purgedfromthematrix.com/forum/vi ... p?f=5&t=97
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good evidence.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Shoonra » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:52 pm

A juridical person is not a legal fiction, it is a very real entity and the law enables it to possess property and to sue and be sued separate from the humans who populate it.

In American law, at least, a 'natural person' means a human being, usually (but not always) an adult.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 4923
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby country_hick » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:46 pm

Nunya_Bizness wrote:The "natural person" fallacy perpetuated by the statist's on this forum to get you to believe that by putting the word natural in front of the word person somehow now makes it not a legal fiction is patently erroneous.

I have covered this here http://purgedfromthematrix.com/forum/vi ... p?f=5&t=97

Do you still have this? It was removed due to its content. Apparently it must have been good.
"actual page 5 from T.C.N's How to use a car... https://ia601801.us.archive.org/21/item ... icense.pdf"

A juridical person is not a legal fiction, it is a very real entity and the law enables it to possess property and to sue and be sued separate from the humans who populate it.
In American law, at least, a 'natural person' means a human being, usually (but not always) an adult.


A yur a dick AL type of person has no blood or heart. Therefore it is fictional no matter what definition is used. Fictional person means it is not actually alive and breathing. Does it live and breathe or not? If it does not live and breathe it is fictional albeat it is legally recognized.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 37 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:19 pm

country_hick wrote:
Nunya_Bizness wrote:The "natural person" fallacy perpetuated by the statist's on this forum to get you to believe that by putting the word natural in front of the word person somehow now makes it not a legal fiction is patently erroneous.

I have covered this here http://purgedfromthematrix.com/forum/vi ... p?f=5&t=97

Do you still have this? It was removed due to its content. Apparently it must have been good.
"actual page 5 from T.C.N's How to use a car... https://ia601801.us.archive.org/21/item ... icense.pdf"


The file was to big to upload directly to Sui, so I have uploaded it to fileconvoy,, here's the download link, http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g5 ... a405760cb1
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good evidence.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:49 pm

Shoonra wrote:A juridical person is not a legal fiction, it is a very real entity and the law enables it to possess property and to sue and be sued separate from the humans who populate it.

In American law, at least, a 'natural person' means a human being, usually (but not always) an adult.

Thank you for making my point.
You have again just made an statement without providing an definition of the term person from an statute or code,that has within it the word man or woman.
does a "juridical","juristic", "natural" Person exist in nature? No! of course not, those are all legal or artificial entities/things that are made up in the minds of man/woman.



*attribute
5.
something attributed as belonging to a person, thing, group, etc.; a quality, character, characteristic, or property:
Sensitivity is one of his attributes.
6.
something used as a symbol of a particular person, office, or status:
A scepter is one of the attributes of a king.
7.
Grammar. a word or phrase that is syntactically subordinate to another and serves to limit, identify, particularize, describe, or supplement the meaning of the form with which it is in construction. In the red house, red is an attribute of house.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good evidence.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:46 pm

Maybe I am misinterpreting what shoonra is stating?

and maybe I am not asking the correct question.

Does a man or woman have the choice of being a juristic person?
Is this something that one can consent to? or not consent to being a juristic person?
Is it mandatory that one don that mask known as a juristic person?


I am of the opinion that you are not equating the term "human being" as being the same as how the American Indians defined or used that term. :nono:
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good evidence.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby palani » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:50 am

Nunya_Bizness wrote:Does a man or woman have the choice of being a juristic person?

A man or woman is capable (if adult and sui juris) of creating any type of person whatsoever. A person is a word or an action. Any man or woman is capable of avoiding either a word or action. A person is also representation. Accept no offers of agency.

I might add neither should he/she pursue any office of public trust.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 158 time
Have thanks: 462 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby country_hick » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:28 pm

I thought that the definition of state and united states would actually include states. I was wrong.

Apparently no state exists unless it is a territory in Maine.
The 2 definitions shown deny the existence of an actual state.

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/1/title1sec72.html
Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Chapter 3: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

§72. Words and phrases

The following rules shall be observed in the construction of statutes relating to words and phrases, unless such construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the enactment, the context otherwise requires or definitions otherwise provide.

21. State. "State," used with reference to any organized portion of the United States, may mean a territory or the District of Columbia.
26-A. United States. "United States" includes territories and the District of Columbia.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 37 time

Re: Useless Statutory definition?

Postby palani » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:56 am

country_hick wrote:I thought that the definition of state and united states would actually include states. I was wrong.

State, territory and land are not synonymous terms.

State is political.

Territory is a claim. When boundary markers are placed to define a territory it is the boundary markers that are owned and nothing else.

Land is volume, a shape, geometrical, that does contain space but what else is included is a matter of belief. Water is not compatible with a definition of land because water can flow into a space and is just as likely to flow out. Also there is the problem of identification. One bucket of water looks the same as another bucket of water (although the bucket might look different).

In a sense land is unclaimed space. Things that are unclaimed might be the topic of discovery. They are also a public nuisance and should be promptly abated by seizing them and posting a claim in a suitable manner such that the claim will be valid until a better claim is presented and costs incurred paid.

Real estate is a concept that a bankrupt can purchase an interest in state, territory or land from another bankrupt.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 158 time
Have thanks: 462 time

Previous

Return to Diverse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred