To: firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:09:44 PM
Subject: Religious beliefs, intimidation , obstruction, and nuisance
To: Firose Mohamed....
++Transportation Alberta January 24 of the 2008th year of our Lord Jesus Christ
Dear private man known as Firose Mohamed .
Thank you Firoz for our productive conversation yesterday....You seemed to have taken training on how to control the conversation....It worked!
Now to the matters at hand.
Simply put the department seems to somehow believe they own my Daughters name...
If that is so then certainly they have a law that allows them to alter it for a financial purpose.....One thing though they do need her informed consent to do that and removing her "all rights reserved under God's law" written on her application if altering a security document with intent.....A very serious criminal breach.
I am wishing to see the law that allows you to intimidate my daughter and by the way I think common sense dictates if she says she is intimidated can you or the government lawyers disprove it?
If she says you altered her name without her permission can you prove you had authority to do it.?
Now either I receive a warm logical conceding letter that no such law or authority exists or you will attempt to stall by asking redundant questions...
Answer mine first and then we can further our calm logical disourse with respect for my daughters Christian faith.
You who are innocent , speak out in support of the integrity that the country and it's history has founded itself upon..
Any other response will be seen as further intimidation and will be used to prove it...
I do not mean to be aggressive but have noticed their are certain lawyers who work for the department of Justice who are in conflict to deal with this matter in an unbiased manner. They are Jewish like I am Christian and according to their own text called Talmud , http://www.come-and-hear.com, regard non Jews, Christians, as animals....I am not being Anti Semetic just observational and providing facts that make it unethical for a Jewish lawyer to decide issues related to the Ability of the Christian faith and it's followers to not be intimidated by de facto legislation that Jewish lawyers wrote that only applies to corporate entities..
Go ask the writer of the Alberta Highway Traffic Act. Wes Dunfield, He's Jewish and admitted it only applied to commercial entities. Corporations can only make law that applies to corporate entities..Dead in law legal fictions
The whole of the Alberta government takes a false oath and that is not an opinion but fact, to get their job,but then to add further insult to injury have no idea about what the true allegiance means that they promised to provide.. Simple logic tells you that if the one promising to provide it if not aware of what they are promising to provide does not know what that promised item is then they irrefutably cannot provide it....They lied to get their job....You work for those who lied to get your Job...
I would say logically that puts you in a compromised position..I feel for your dilemna.
Here is proof of the false oath giving credense as to why we need to have our correct names on that license or admit we as ministers do not need one. You will see words used in definitions that lead us to the definitions of those word so please follow closely so you will see the deliberate deception utilizing the average man or woman's lack of knowledge as to what the words mean by their own definitions. .If we are not diligent in reviewing definitions then in reality we have no idea what we are reading but rely usually upon a false premise based upon an assumption which as you will see is also false.
This is not new, we are being sucked up my multinational corporate vested interests that have no respect for God as money is their God and this is a visible arena that the G8 has built.
All the complication and deceit is to be held in check by that oath of allegiance but as no one has ever asked for the meaning of it before to my knowledge. It is violated more out of tradition arrogance and ignorance than, as it is to be, in all seriousness , held up as a high ideal that all must and shall adhere to if they are to gain true sanction of her majesty. All other attempts at using her authority are fraudulent and must be resisted and avoided.
These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
And then the Alberta Version again,
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.?
See the difference? If they are different only one is valid. Guess which one!
Evidently Alberta is behind the times in it's respect for federal law and has not included the Queen of Canada in the oath. That according to federal law shows and proves that Alberta Judges politicians police and all who took that oath are without true sanction or authority as you will notice the federal act ,of precedent regarding oaths to her majesty, is quite explicit and uses the word shall which is an imperative and the words "no other" in reference as to the formation of the oath! The word "Do" is missing from the Alberta oath folks! That makes it grammatically incorrect and an incomplete sentence. Jibberish!
This puts those men and women that have taken that oath in a position of no sanction or authority from the Queen at all and are bogus according to the federal law ! Schedule 5 from the BNAA
That died in 1901along with Dominion of Canada subsequent to the 1893 repeal of the inheritance section 2. It was incorporated as a for profit Business the day after Victoria 's death!
We also have proof the government of Canada is a false illegitimate god..
This from the Governor Generals website'''
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
"Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State."
It's only one word but lets see what the Creditor for Canada has to say.. They own all the assets registered with all the registries reporting to the corporation of Canada as we are in debt close to 1 trillion dollars to that private family owned business... The heritage of those families is not secret the lawyers who are prejudiced against Christians are probably related to them....Islam Christian and Jews all follow the same Ten Commandments....The eleventh is in Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32......do not add to my law!
I cant find the provinces de facto legislation in my Bible but do see Exodus 20:3-5 commanding me to not bow to false gods or serve them..
These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete treatment of the subject.
Dealings with De Facto Governments
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.
1. A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
So now lets go to the law dictionaries the legal staff for the province uses...
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
de facto (dë fak'tö). In fact, as distinguished from "de jure," by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.
de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. (like rape)
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
de facto (dë fak'tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognition, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
now you may ask how does all this relate to my Daughters ability to ride in her car rather than Drive..
Lets find out what Drive really means,
This from the original statute regarding drivers needing a license in North America.
Origin Of Driver's Licenses
A 1925 Act Creating Driver's Licenses for those Engaged in Transportation for Hire.
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Passed At The
REGULAR SESSION OF THE
An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and
highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account
of such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith.
[ Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1.**** The words and phrases used in this act
shall for the purposes of this act, unless the same be
contrary to or inconsistent with the context, be
construed as follows:
(a)* The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall
be construed to mean a certificate of public convenience
and necessity granted or issued by the railroad
commission of the State of California, authorizing a
common carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the
conditions prescribed by said commission, and shall
include all amendments to or changes in such certificate
which may be made by said commission.
(b)* The word "operator" shall include all persons,
firms, associations and corporations who operate motor
vehicles upon any public highway in this state and
thereby engage in the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation, but shall not include
any person, firm, association or corporation who solely
transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports his or its own property, or employees, or
both, and who transports no persons or property for hire
or compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying so exempted shall be required to obtain from the
state board of equalization and to display exempt emblems
in the manner herein
an old definition from Bouviers Law Dictionary then a newer one...
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
"Jurisdiction" comes from the Latin "juris" which is the law, and "diction" which means speak. What law is speaking to you? Most people are unknowingly under a corporate statutory jurisdiction because they voluntarily got a drivers license. This comes under maritime/admiralty law, equity law, and/or statutory law and you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Some people refuse to get a "drivers license" to avoid voluntarily relinquishing their fundamental Constitutional Right to Travel.
Some definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition. 1933. Though old, these are current with vehicle codes, revised in 1959.
"Driver" "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car." So a driver is someone who makes their living driving on roads, such as a chauffeur, taxicab driver, or trucker. The state does have the right to regulate commerce on the roads.
"License" "A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort." A license allows you to do something illegal. James Bond Style
"Traffic" (as in court) " Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandize, bills, money, and the like."
Without a doubt, a "drivers license" is a privilege, regulating commerce on our thoroughfares, and not a right. Christians must refuse to get a drivers license to retain their rights.
This from the highway traffic Act of Alberta
"driver" or "operator" means a
person who drives or is in
actual physical control of a vehicle;
"vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or
thing may be transported or drawn on a highway.
now back to Bouviers and Blacks law dictionaries so we can have no argument or foolish intimidating rebuttal to the already accepted definitions in law
Transport,,, Blacks Law first Edition.
"The removal of goods or
persons from one place to another by carrier"
CARRIERS, contracts. There are two kinds of carriers, namely, common carriers, (q. v.) who have been considered under another head; and private carriers. These latter are persons who, although they do not undertake to transport the goods of such as choose to employ them, yet agree to carry the goods of some particular person for hire, from one place to another.
2. In such case the carrier incurs no responsibility beyond that of any other ordinary bailee for hire, that is to say, the responsibility of ordinary diligence. 2 Bos. & Pull. 417; 4 Taunt. 787; Selw. N. P. 382 n.; 1 Wend. R. 272; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 2 Dana, R. 430; 6 Taunt. 577; Jones, Bailm. 121; Story on Bailm, 495. But in Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1 Watts & Serg. 285, it was holden that a Wagoner Who carries goods for hire, contracts,the responsibility of a common carrier, whether transportation be his principal and direct business, or only an occasional and incidental employment.
3. To bring a person within the description of a common carrier, he must exercise his business as a public employment; he must undertake to carry goods for persons generally; and he must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire, as a business; not as a casual occupation pro hac vice. 1 Salk. 249; 1 Bell's Com. 467; 1 Hayw. R. 14; 1 Wend. 272; 2, Dana, R. 430. See Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.
d) "commercial vehicle"
(i) means a truck, trailer or semi-trailer, except
(A) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer that is a public
service vehicle, or
(B) a truck, trailer or semi-trailer or any class of
vehicle that by the regulations or by an order of
the Alberta Motor Transport Board
from being classified as a commercial vehicle,
(A) a motor vehicle from which sales are made of
goods, wares, merchandise or commodity, and
(B) a motor vehicle by means of which delivery is
made of goods, wares, merchandise or
commodity to a purchaser or consignee of them;
(q.1) "public service vehicle"
(i) means a motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer
operated on a highway by or on behalf of a person
for compensation, whether that operation is regular
or only occasional or for a single trip, and
(ii) includes a motor vehicle kept by a person for the
purpose, subject to the regulations, of being rented
without a driver, but
(iii) does not include a motor vehicle used solely as an
ambulance or hearse or for the transportation of the
So to be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and
command me to not show respect to persons as they are
fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4.. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.
2. The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.
3. By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgment, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgment or judgments by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgment or judgments shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Here are a list of more succinct definitions so no one gets lost.
I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human
I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.
Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?
To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?
Well….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".
Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.
I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...
Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."
Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.
Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.
Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'colored man'!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.
Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.
When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word 'Caucasian', listed for race (they don't seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a 'Caucasian'). So back to the definitions of 'Caucasian".
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.
Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be 'white', but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let's see what an 'older' Black's Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).
Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines "Caucasian' As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.
That's interesting, it appears that 'white racist Aryan' groups, like 'Aryan Nations' types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even 'Caucasians' under this definition, so they can't be from the 'White' Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older 'Semitic' language referred to in Black's Law Dictionary).
Back to Noah's Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word 'Caucasian'.
Caucasian - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.
OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are 'persons' and some of them are 'individuals', and some 'Natural persons' do exist, of this I have no doubt, I've met some of them. There are also many that I believe are 'Humans', or 'Human beings', these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However...
My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a 'Caucasian'. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a 'Caucasian male'. I am also a follower of the Scriptural Messiah, commonly called a Christian. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Christian Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a 'Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male'……. or an 'LBCCM' - Cool - Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Christian 'White' Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus..
Now lets see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you.
The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ.
Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
"Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
So I could provide you more but I think you already overwhelmed as I destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massivr criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you know see why my Daughter wants her name corrected and her proviso "All rights Reserved in God's law" under her signature? This destroys any assumptions she has submitted to the false gods running the Alberta Legislature...Remember everyone of them has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority.
So you have seen the proof irrefutable and you can watch the intimidating comments from Lauries office as her illegitimate false oathed lawyers intentionally violate 176 180 and 423 of the criminal code...Oh and violating an act of Parliament to..126 of the criminal code.. The act? the Oaths of Allegiance Act
So either you can see your way to treating us as you did the Hutterites or your back in court only this time with proof your institution is based upon a fraud..
Not opinion factual evidence that makes every lawyer with a Jewish heritage cringe...Did you know that those of that faith take an oath once a year called the KOL NIDRE.....It is so they can disavow any other oaths they have taken during the year in order to deceive others and so God will condone their actions.
Yes it is true. That truth is not, I repeat not, antiSemetic but it is anti Fraud and Lies!
Do you think we all have the ability to complain about such abuse of power ,or should we be shut up as antisemites cause we tell the factual provable truth?
I appreciate your intellectual comments which do not originate from some drone like dialogue you have been trained to say. Do not be played like a puppet as they will attempt to do so...Ask how in law you get to intimidate a man or woman to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs...
If you want next email I will send you all the de facto legal precedentslike the Samur case in Quebec where the civil law of the province lost to 176 of the criminal code and 180 applied as well as 423..Civil law,yours cannot trump criminal code....Tell that one to Jim Leitch.
Blessings upon your willingness to not let our brain be washed in dirty water......
Thankyou for your time....