The modern day slave drivers are wearing a costume.

Personally I always strive to remember when using dictionary's, that the dictionary is merely the opinion of the author's and publishers as to what the meaning of a word is. What I have found is that really words mean what the person speaking them intend them to mean and that almost always is different from person to person. It is also easy to gain a better comprehension of a word if you look up the etymology of the word. However what is in black and white and claimed as the source for what words mean in court or the land of officialdom is supposed to be what is adhered too. 

The Act's, Statutes, and Codes are all in black and white.

Be aware however that just as words having different meanings from person to persons, the people wearing the costumes are really living breathing PERSON's. So even though the definitions of terms are written in black and white it doesn't mean that they are the guiding light of what is going to happen.

The other thing of note is that in supplying you the written definitions I did not correct misspellings and my intent was to give it to you as it is written in the dictionary. So when you look down and see in 8. that it writes hushhands instead of husbands don't go looking at me all weird ed out. It is a type-o I think. I also think that the greatest amount of evidence that we are dealing with mentally ill people is in there dictionary's. 

Lastly I want you to easily be able to tell my commentary from the written text of the dictionary so I put my commentary in block quotes like this.

What is a PERSON:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition - Letter A - Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856.pdf   

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. Page 61

It is obvious that they are trying to say everyone is included in their definition of the term. It is equally obvious do to the length of the definition one can see that there is fraud occurring within the definition itself. We are supposed to be defining the Person, Place, or Thing and not who it applies two. 

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. 

To me 2. is furthering fraud within the definition. After all Elmer Fud is a artificial person, like states and federal agencies, but there is no living breathing being in the real world that is Elmer Fud.

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.

3. to me is just telling you how they are going to obfuscate when necessary.

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.

Why are natural persons divided into males or females. Why are Women denied public office or civil functions? Seems like purposeful omission for what reasons one would be disallowed engagements or functions?  Slavery perhaps?

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. 

So slavery is a part of the existing system. Not outlawed at all see not ratified 16 th amendment. Why more divisions? Do the divisions provide advantage to someone? More proof slavery is the system.

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.

More proof that the art of war divide and concur strategy is the goal. 

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

Even more divide and concur tactic right here in the dictionary. Do you think there are so many divisions because if We The People act as one they don't have a chance in putting forth the slavery?

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv Inst. n. 1890, note.

More division. What I notice also is that all through out references are made to other sources. Like 1 Toull. n 168; 

So what have we learned and what do I question:

1. In 1. They want everyone included in their definition of person.

• Not just a definition, but an expression of who it applies  too. 
• Fraud occurring within the definition itself? Just my opinion here.

1. In 2. denote a corporation which is an artificial person.

• Bugs Bunny is a artificial person so fictional persons count? Some insanity here?

1. In 3. to me is just telling you how they are going to obfuscate when necessary.

• So is fraud necessary when you accept there definition of terms?

1. In 4. Lots of divisions that to me are examples of divide and concur strategy.

• Seems like the art of war divide strategy that is applied to enemies that out number you. 

1. In 5. So slavery is a part of the existing system.

• Not outlawed at all see not ratified 16 th amendment. 
• Why more divisions? 
• Do the divisions provide advantage to someone?
• More proof slavery is the system.

1. In 6. More proof that the art of war divide and concur strategy is the goal. 

• Divide between alian, citizen and Civil living versus Civil dead.
• More proof that the system is the Slave system.

1. In 7 More divide this time between legitimates and bastards 

• Purpose is taking of rights. (Theft) (Slavery)

1. In 8. Domestic Divide

•  divided into parents and children; 
• hushands and wives; 
• guardians and wards; 
• masters and servants son,

My analysis of this is that these people are actually slaver's who have merely put on a costume. Sadly we are the property they are the slave drivers, but who is the master? Could it be that the same people who claim to own us through law and it's definitions also own the agencies through bribes and kick back?

  

All  photo's are from Pixabay. I am not responsible for if you think, how  you think, what you think or what you do. You are! If you like my  content consider up voting and following my blog. Peace! 

What do you think? 

Join the informationwar click banner.