Replies

However, the courts have interpreted the word “person” to include a corporation many times because corporations are generally a group of owners, who are human beings. Owners do not have to work for a corporation that they own.

There is a legal construction principle called "ejusdem generis," which means "of the same kind, class, or nature." What it is used for is the construction and interpretation of lists and examples. And what it requires is that all of the things in any list or examples be the same.

As I said earlier, human beings under the original Constitution have God-given rights. While corporations ahve no rights, but State granted and limited privileges. These two powers - rights versus privileges - are fundamentally opposite in nature, and therefore are mutually exclusive. You cannot have rights and privileges in the same entity under the same conditions at the same time. It's either - or. You can be free, or you can be a slave, but you can't be both.

Whenever a statute lists it's application to corporations, it actually specifies a group of corporate types - usually including "individuals, partnerships, trusts, limited liability corporations and corporations." If you look up the definition of the word "individual" in the US Code, it says that it means "person."

However, under the principle of ejusdem generis, all of the things in that list have to be the same. So you can't have some entities having rights (persons and individuals), and other entities having privileges (partnerships, trusts, limited liability corporations and corporations). They ALL have to have EITHER rights OR privileges.

And corporations CANNOT have rights.

Therefore, statutory "persons" and "individuals" DO NOT have rights either.

This mystery is solved when you examine the detailed statutes, which are usually hidden, that go on to describe APPLICABLE "persons" and "individuals" as having CORPORATE REPRESENTATION AUTHORITY, as well as actually doing whatever it is the statute is addressing under that corporate authority.

So the only human people who are under corporate law are those who are representing that company, in other words, acting as its agents as a corporation. This DOES NOT include "employees" who work FOR the corporation, but not AS its representatives (such as the officers, board, etc.).

So you see why keeping this strictly narrow meaning of the words "person" or "individual" an open secret is so important. Because as it is, if a government agent asks you if you are a person or an individual, and you say yes, you are accepting the loss of your rights under the status of a corporately limited representative - and thus making yourself voluntarily liable to corporate statutes that otherwise simply would not otherwise apply to you.

And that is what "person" and "individual" REALLY mean.