How to Deal with your legal self_3239

PRESENCE

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s
Your Real Identity?

All credit to Ken Bartle.
This ebook is was produced by SK Foundation for education

purposes only

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

By Ken Bartle
Suppose that the word ʻpersonʼ (by de nition) has been misconstrued in meaning.
Suppose that in our society, a ‘person’ is a LEGAL ENTITY, a thing, an arti cial construct
and not a ʻliving beingʼ? Suppose that you are blissfully ignorant of this deception, and
truly believe that you are a “person”.
What if your government considers a ‘person’ to be a corporate entity? And what if,
without your knowledge or consent, you are legally responsible for a corporate entity
that bears your name? And as a consequence you are bound by rules and laws that were
meant to govern commerce, not people?
What ill consequences might arise from your ignorance? And who might bene t from
this misunderstanding? Letʼs look.
So what is a person? Is a “person” a ʻthingʼ, is it a legal entity, or is it a ʻliving beingʼ? That
needs to be clear.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

This article pursues the concept of the ʻpersonʼ and exposes our system of ‘identi cation’
as a most damnable and contemptuous crime.

“I’m that person”

Imagine you arrive at the front desk of your local government of ce and youʼre asked if
you have any personal ID. “Yes, no problem” you say, as you ash your photo ID card or
passport saying, “Iʼm the person”.

Suppose a ‘person’ is actually a LEGAL ENTITY. Havenʼt you just and agreed to act on
behalf of that ‘arti cial person’ in your capacity as a ʻliving beingʼ? Havenʼt you have just
agreed to continue the deception? And since you consented to this monstrous
deception, would it shock you that corporatised ʻgovernmentsʼ use that consent to treat
you as a LEGAL ENTITY, an arti cial ʻpersonʼ, in all that it does and in every court in the
country? Does it shock you that ʻgovernmentʼ demands every self-serving compliance it
can get away with? That it owns your drivers licence, your passport, your birth certi cate,
your kids, your education, their education, your health, your property title, your car?

And how would you feel to learn that every time you use the word ʻpersonʼ, you endorse
a criminally deceptive legal perversion that underpins the most heinous crime in human
history; the theft of your life, your identity, your freedom, and that of your family and
friends?

What is a “person”?

Oxford Dictionary de nes ‘identi cation’ as:

a means of proving a person’s identity, especially in
the form of of cial papers”. [emphasis added]

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Google provides a multitude of answers to the question – “original meaning of person?”
My trusty Mac summed all of them succinctly.

ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ‘persone’,
from Latin persona, ʻactor’s mask, character in a
playʼ, later ʻhuman being.ʼ

Letʼs go right back to its Latin origins – persona, actor’s mask, character in a play. The word
‘person’ denotes a mask, a presumed character, a concealment of sorts, something under
the covers that only deliberate inquiry may reveal.

So what might the word ‘person’ be hiding?

Let’s start by de ning the legal meaning of the word ʻpersonʼ. There are two persons
identi ed in law: these are “natural-person” and “arti cial-person”.

Natural persons

Letʼs try to de ne “Natural person”. Several de nitions emerge from Google:

a  human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.
 ‘natural person’ refers to a human being as opposed to a legally-created entity, like a
Corporation, Limited Liability Company, General Partnership, Limited Partnership,
etc.
 A natural person is any human being, with legal capacity commencing from the
time of birth.
A  living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation.
 A living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons
without their express consent.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

All resources agree on “human being”, but there seems far too much divergence of
opinion to clearly de ne ʻnatural personʼ. Quali ers and dis-quali ers abound; none are
de nitive.

Further research brought the website natural-person.ca into focus, particularly because it
offers some words of caution.

Two key words that are re-de ned in almost every Statute are the words “person” and
“individual”. There are only two “persons” in law, a human being, and everything else: a
natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being. An arti cial-person is a legal entity
that is not a human being.

Did you spot it?

In almost every Statute”, there are two types of “persons”, and both are legal entities; one
for the living being, and one not a living being. But did you notice it does not say that a
ʻnatural-personʼ is legally “OF” the living being, but is an entity “FOR” the living being? Is it
logical that if the “natural-person” is a ʻlegal entityʼ FOR a living human, then “natural-
person” has no humanity to it. (E.g. a door FOR a shed is a door; it cannot also be a shed.)

Whatever happened to the “breathing”? What happened to all that esh and blood?

Well, according to your LEGAL status, esh and blood doesn’t exist. The de nition of the
phrase “natural-person” does not include the living beingʼs “Life characteristics”; those
ʻlifeʼ elements which prove life is present, have been disquali ed. A “natural-person” is
something constructed to serve a human being, and so must be some ʻthingʼ other than
human. It does not live. This “natural-person” is dependent for all its actions upon a living,
breathing human being.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Does this surprise you? And would it surprise you to know you were not supposed to
notice this distinction… like it is masked in legality and deceit?

Person or human?

Let’s examine this idea.
There are only two “persons” in law, a human being, and everything else. Sounds simple
enough. Whatʼs to explain further?
Every human being is considered by the legal system to be a “person”. You are a member
of the (legal) “person” club, and as an unknowing member of that club, a “natural-person”
entity has been created for you. It hides under the mask of “person” and, deceptively,
shares your name. And if you accept your ʻmembershipʼ by ashing your ID card, you are
accepting and con rming that you are anarti cial person.

Arti cial persons

The word ʻarti cialʼ means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring
naturally, typically as a copy of something natural. So an ʻarti cial personʼ is seemingly a
man made copy – but of what?
An arti cial person is a legal entity that is not a human being, but for certain legal
purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.
Is your understanding complete yet, or is the wolf still circling?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Government created an arti cial thing that is non-human, a Legal Entity, and labelled it
an ‘arti cial person’. Government statutes also create a ʻnatural personʼ entity, which
enables the ʻliving beingʼ to act for the ʻarti cial personʼ – and be bound by rules
applicable only to ‘arti cial persons’.

So what does this mean?

Most people will accept that there is something about “government” that doesn’t feel
right; that our current social structure doesn’t really bene t us, or our ailing environment.
In a world of beauty and abundance, we work unreasonably long hours in concrete cities,
foregoing our own desires, to barely scrape by. Why? To t into a system of controls that
existed long before each of us was born.

But think about it. If “the system” doesn’t bene t you, who does it ultimately bene t? It
must work tosomeone’s advantage. It’s just not you!

And now we’re starting to understand how this all came to pass.

Government is not stupid. It recognised that a real, live human-being was an
indispensable factor in activating this legal entity, to give it “life” and activity…. i.e. to open
envelopes, vote to uphold government, write letters, pay on demand, get the kids
vaccinated, attend court, apply for a license, pay registration fees, pay the extortion fee
( ne) for parking longer than 60 minutes — all so that government could make money
from your existence. Which it inevitably does.

Surprised? Don’t be. Government is a corporation after all!

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

But how many people really know and understand that what we consider “government’
is not real government, that it only masquerades as such? Theyʼve hidden this fact well,
and for a very long time.

So what else have governments hidden? Youʼve guessed haven’t you? Persons.

Government recognised that it needed to mask this ‘person’ scam and keep it from
public view. Otherwise, who would play along? Without your agreement (albeit by deceit)
to play along, to represent the LEGAL ENTITY, government knows it cannot exercise
control over your being. Government knows that it cannot legitimately exercise authority
over living beings, as it is itself the creation of living beings. In the natural hierarchy,
human trumps institution every day of the week.

So, to facilitate its system of control, government went back to Latin…. and presto! There
was the word persona – a mask. The word tted its purpose to perfection! And by
misconstruing its meaning in common usage, living breathing human beings
unknowingly accept the obligations imposed by law on the Legal entities created in our
names.

The de nition of ʻpersonʼ now makes perfect sense, doesnʼt it? An ʻactor’s mask’, a
‘character in a play’. And what better mask than to have a “Natural Person” act as a bridge
to the LEGAL ENTITY – the “arti cial person”? Better yet, why not put the ʻnatural personʼ
(an entity created “for” the living being) in the same court (pun intended) with the non-
living ʻarti cialʼ person, so that Lawyers can put more knots in the corporate noose that
today has us all hanging by our necks?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

By skilfully using the word “person” for both entities, government has hidden the mask
right under your nose. We have been led to believe that a “person” is a human being – full
stop. So we accept the legal ownership of the “person” LEGAL ENTITY (created by
government) and in the process forego our basic human rights to the will of government.

Blackʼs Law [Fictionary] Dictionary (9th Ed.) says this about “Arti cial Persons”:

Arti cial person. (17c) An entity, such as a
corporation, created by law and given certain legal
rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or
imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is
treated more or less as a human being …. – Also
termed ctitious person; juristic person; juridical
person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY

Persons, persons, persons! Read it again. Pause on every phrase. Let every one sink in.

Is your ‘person’ a “legal entity” that bleeds you of every life characteristic you possess, a
lifeless entity that will be treated as “more or less” human? And if ʻpersonsʼ are “given
certain legal rights and duties”, then do ʻpersonsʼ also have unalienable rights – rights
that do not depend on government granting or withdrawing them? You would have to
think not, surely.

Personally speaking….

Wikipedia asserts that the purpose of identi cation (ID) is to “verify aspects of a person’s
personal identity”, and there aren’t many who would disagree with that de nition. Now
consider….

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

When a person, who does not understand what ‘person’ actually means, hands over their
personal ID to another person, they give up their persona and becomes the ‘person’
behind the mask. They assume the role of the LEGAL ENTITY ‘person’, a mask they
believe is their real human person.
Use of the word ʻpersonʼ on a daily basis is almost impossible to escape. It is so ingrained
into our language, our conversations, even our news reports.
For example, “two witnesses reported a young person departing at high speed”.
Witness de nition? A person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.
Another example, “many were horribly shocked, some bystanders needing psychological
counselling”.
Bystander de nition? A person who is present at an event or incident but does not take
part.
Another example, “the defendant appeared in court in person“.
The labels and roles we are attributed in our society all invariably point back to the word
‘person’ which, as we know, is a LEGAL ENTITY.

Collectively speaking….

‘Peopleʼ is a collective word. ‘Persons’ is also a collective word. So what is the difference?
According to OxfordDictionaries.com:

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

The words people and persons can both be used as
the plural of person, but they are not used in exactly
the same way.

People is by far the more common of the two words
and is used in most ordinary contexts: a group of
people : there were only about ten people : several
thousand people have been rehoused.

Persons, on the other hand, tends now to be
restricted to of cial or formal contexts, as in : this
vehicle is authorized to carry twenty persons : no
persons admitted without a pass.

Did you catch that one? Observe that “a group of people”, “about 10 people”, “several
thousandpeople” describes living, esh-and-blood human beings.

‘Persons’, conversely, is a quantity of individuals to be ruled, to be restricted, to be
governed, to be “authorized”, to be (or not to be) “admitted without a pass”.

As the linguistic context switched from ʻpeopleʼ to ʻpersonsʼ, so too the social context
switched from ʻnot ruledʼ to ʻruledʼ.

Personalism

Twists and turns permeate the topic of the ‘person’, as all the above indicates. if you really
want to get to the bottom of a ‘person’ (excuse the pun – I did not mean to be personal!)
a thorough and comprehensive article entitled ‘Personalism’, from The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1 is essential (but not easy) reading.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

The term ‘person’ comes from the Latin persona,
whose origins are traceable to Greek drama, where
the πρόσωπον, or mask, became identi ed with the
role an actor would assume in a given production.
Such usage is carried over today in the word
“persona,” referring to characters in ctional
literature or drama, or second identities which
people adopt for behaviour in given social contexts.

Its introduction into the mainstream of intellectual
parlance, however, came with theological discourse
during the patristic period, notably the attempts to
clarify or de ne central truths of the Christian faith.
These discussions focused primarily on two
doctrines: the Trinity (three “persons” in one God)
and the incarnation of the second person of the
Trinity (the “hypostatic” union of two natures – divine
and human – in one “person”).

Notice the bold portions. Are you seeing a trend here? Throughout the patristic period,
the word ‘person’ was cultivated to denote separation, or multiple identities.

In a later paragraph it is described as an:

… elusive concept which in some respects wholly
inverts the original connotations of exteriority in the
early meanings of “mask” and “role”: person comes
rather to denote the innermost spiritual and most
authentic kernel of the unique individual.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Observe how the (innermost spiritual) persona is seen to be an element within the
ʻpersonʼ, as though separate from the individual; as though the persona has an assumed
(greater) importance.

Dignity

Keep reading Personalism, and after describing the Eastern, European and American
in uences and histories of “personalism”, the real message begins to emerge….

Dignity refers to the inherent value of the person, as
a “someone” and not merely “something,” and this
confers an absoluteness not found in other beings.

Donʼt run away yet – thereʼs a tiger lurking here. Consider this….

If dignity is the inherent value of the person, then self-respect, pride, self-esteem and
self-worth are human attributes that transform “something” into “someone”. The
“absoluteness of those attributes are not found in other beings”. Join the dots and
human dignity is what makes a person, agreed?

But what are these “other beings” that do not have dignity and do not therefore qualify
as persons? Are they animals? Letʼs look further.

In stressing the uniqueness of persons vis-à-vis all
other entities, personalists in uenced by Thomism
(Thomas Aquinas) designate the essential dividing
line of reality as that which separates personal and
non-personal being.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Now weʼre getting closer! Does a “non-personal being” suggest an arti cial-person?

Here classical-realist personalists reject the
Hobbesian (Thomas Hobbes) notion of dignity as the
price set on an individual by the commonwealth,
and ally themselves rather with Kant (Emanuel Kant)
in his assertion that dignity is inherent and sets itself
beyond all price. (Emphasis mine)

Apparently thereʼs division in the ranks. It seems that (notional) “dignity” was once
considered the “price set on an individual by the commonwealth”, but German
philosopher Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) asserted that dignity is
beyond all price, because it is inherent.
Sounds like Kant knew his stuff! Is there a change in tone here, as rst seems to be the
case? Or did Kant realize that if you want to disguise a non-living being as a living being
youʼd damn well better give both dignity or youʼve blown your cover?

The mask

Continuing from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Swiss theologian Hans Urs
presented the following viewpoint:

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Von Balthasar, for example, wrote: “Few words have
as many layers of meaning as person. On the surface
it means just any human being, any countable
individual. Its deeper senses, however, point to the
individual’s uniqueness which cannot be
interchanged and therefore cannot be counted.” In
this deeper sense persons cannot, properly speaking,
be counted, because a single person is not merely
one in a series…. and thus exchangeable for any
other.

Von Balthasar goes on to say: “If one distinguishes
between ‘individual’ and ‘person’ (and we should for
the sake of clarity), thena special dignity is ascribed
to the person, which the individual as such does not
possess…. We will speak of a ʻpersonʼ… when
considering the uniqueness, the incomparability and
therefore irreplaceability of the individual. (Emphasis
mine)

But it seems Kantian psychology won the day.

In an article entitled “Causality Versus Duty”, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand wrote….

If “genius” denotes extraordinary ability, then Kant
may be called a genius in his capacity to sense, play
on and perpetuate human fears, irrationalities and,
above all, ignorance. His in uence rests not on
philosophical but on psychological factors.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Further demonstrating her point, Rand also wrote….

Kant originated the technique required to sell
irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical
age who have formally rejected mysticism without
grasping the rudiments of rationality.

The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate
an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally
accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be
brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your
proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze
a readerʼs critical faculty – a mess of evasions,
equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non
sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere,
irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and
subsub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of
the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown
in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to
pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the
untraceable and the unprovable – all of it resting on
a zero: the absence of de nitions.

What greater evil?

Letʼs examine Randʼs reference to “propagating an outrageously evil idea”. Which of the
following would be the greater evil?

1. To propagate an outrageously evil idea? Or….

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

2. To give an existing evil idea the face of acceptability so thoroughly and uniformly that no
one would ever recognise its evil nature or purpose?

How would you achieve what question 2 proposes? How would you whitewash an evil
idea thoroughly?

There are no prizes for the correct answer; youʼd dispel the notion that the idea was evil in
the rst place; make it acceptable, normalise it, gloss it over, change the words so it
means something different, even remove the words entirely. And, because this must be
done thoroughly and uniformly, youʼd hit the most receptive nerves possible through
the most common resources at your disposal.

Scrubbing scripture

For clues, letʼs look back through history, before the times of the many philosophers
mentioned in the Stamford University article, speci cally to the Wycliffe Bible (1380) (by
LAMP POST Inc. 2008)

1. James 2 v9:

But if ye taken persones, ye worchen synne, and ben
repreued of the lawe, as trespasseris.

2. Romans 2 v11

For acceptioun of persones is not anentis God.

3. Acts 10 v34

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

And Petre openyde his mouth, and seide, In trewthe
Y haue foundun, that God is no acceptor of persones;

Now this was written is in 1380. There was no TV and no internet in those days. No emails,
faxes or even Gestetner duplicating machines. “WTF is a typewriter..” it might be asked,
“much less a Biro?”

But there were philosophers, the practice of which examines the fundamental aspects of
the nature of existence, to provide man with a comprehensive view of life that serves as a
base and frame of reference for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or
existential.

Even without a detailed language translation, it is very clear from the 1380 biblical
quotations above that ʻpersonsʼ was not an acceptable idea to God, to say least. “God is
no acceptor of persones” and “acceptioun of persones” is “synne”.

Philosopherʼs disagreed. Immanuel Kant, and others proceeding him, decided that
“persones” should be granted dignity, even at the expense of individuals – of living
human beings.

Surely that con icts with the scriptures quoted above! Did these dudes turn the tables,
psychologically and philosophically? Did they give an existing evil idea the face of
acceptability so thoroughly and uniformly that no one would ever recognise its
outrageously evil nature or purpose?

Letʼs look at more evidence….

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Letʼs take the exact same references as above – this time from the (King James Bible)
KJB printed by Hodder & Stoughton for the International Bible Society NIV © edition
1995.
1. James 2 v9:

But if you show favouritism, you sin and are
convicted by the law as law breakers.

2. Romans 2 v11

For God does not show favouritism.

3. Acts 10 v34

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realise how true it
is that God does not show favouritism…”

Now Compare the 1380 quotations with their 1995 equivalents. Three times the word
ʻpersonʼ has been removed. Three times the word ‘favouritismʼ has been substituted.
Letʼs explore this idea further….
First, God declares ʻpersonsʼ to be sinners and unacceptable; adopting a ‘person’, or ‘a
presumed character’, it is an act of ‘concealment’.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

625 years later, God apparently has second thoughts. ‘Favoritism’ is now the sin, and
‘persons’ are now unclassi able, equally acceptable with all others, and absolved from sin.
The evil of ʻpersonsʼ that God rst warned of has, miraculously, completely vanished. Now
your life, your ‘dignity’, your “inherent value” that de nes you as a “someone and not
merely something”, all means naught — because “God does not show favouritism”.

How clever is that? And how morally and criminally reprehensible?

Today, despite what God may have said in the past, ʻarti cial personsʼ are considered
completely acceptable because favouritism is the new sin. So too are natural-persons,
juristic persons, juridical persons, legal persons, moral persons and even LEGAL ENTITIES.

So…. who are you?

When you interact with government and the law, will you be treated as an ʻarti cial
personʼ, a ʻnatural personʼ, or your real living breathing self?

Do you do governments’ bidding? Do you comply with their every statute and law? DO
you suffer every rule and regulation? Agree to every nancial impediment and our
constant state of debt? Accept every act of corporate back-scratching and pro table
environmental irresponsibility? And bow to a state of tyranny and militaristic terror?

How many millions of us listen up, sit up, pay up and shut up…. then teach our children
that government is for their personal protection and bene t?

Why do we religiously believe we must carry a small card to validate our existence, when
offering that ID constitutes nothing more than agreeing (with government) that you will
act as some “thing” you are not?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Why do thousands cry tears of blood every week when stripped of their ID or driverʼs
licence, when that card has really belonged to, and de ned, an ʻarti cial personʼ from day
one?

Have you been beguiled to believe the ‘arti cial person’, which government so cleverly
masked in word play, is you?

Do you understand the criminality of stripping you of your ʻlife characteristicsʼ, or the
inverted morality involved in such a scheme?

Are you a esh-and-blood, thinking, living being? Or an ‘arti cial person’ that your ID
endorses every time you present it?

Your consent

Where, on any ID card you have ever seen it stated, written or encoded that you are a
living being, to the exclusion of all others?

You haven’t. And do you see why not? If others are not expressly excluded then legal
entities, natural and arti cial persons, can also be identi ed in the same way.

As a card-carrying ‘person’, you are considered no different to a ‘natural’ or ‘arti cial
person’. You have the same rights as a corporation. Every time you offer up your ID card,
you grant government your consent to this arrangement. Every time you open an
envelope addressed to someone that you think is you, but is really the ‘person’ that
shares your name, you grant government your consent to be that ʻpersonʼ- and to be
treated accordingly.

Goodbye inalienable rights, hello dictates of government!

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

Your consent to be treated as a ʻpersonʼ is all Government wants from you. And, by these
methods and many more, you submit to all their statutes, laws, thievery and corruption –
all because you have been taught that your ID is really you.
What does your ‘of cial’ ID card actually prove? Itʼs not proof of your true identity that
government wants. What they want from you is your agreement to act as the ʻpersonʼ
they created.
Remember the phrase “Consent of the Governed”? Is its real meaning clearer now?

You hold the key

Despite all the lies, masks, obfuscations, falsi cations, arti cialities, political constructs
and bloody-minded corruption (revealed over centuries), what still remains untainted
and unblemished? What stands head and shoulders above all else – simple, pure, honest
and without reproach?
You. The fact that you live.
Some feel incompetent to run their own lives, yet feel supremely competent to run the
lives of others. Government are incompetent dependents on one hand, yet belligerently
skilful manipulators on the other.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

By nature, government is dependent. Your life, every breath that you take, is the life force
on which they depend. Your life is their power, the only power they have. They give you
an ID, as though you never had life before they granted it. They made a ‘natural person’
entity in your name, which ensures you interact appropriately with the legal and
economic systems they have created around you. By exercising whatever force they
consider necessary, they use this entity to strip you bare of the very life force they
depend on.

But that entity is not you. It is a mask, and its name admits that fact.

Reclaiming you “ID”

Get a life? NO! You have it already.

Take back your life force. Grasp hold of those characteristics that clearly and unmistakably
prove you are a unique expression of your creator. Take charge of those “life
characteristics” as a breathing, esh and blood human being. Identify those
characteristics. Claim them. They belong to you.

Forget the “Birth Certi cate” BS. Thatʼs one of their masking lters, a document used by
government to create the ‘natural person’. A Birth Certi cate only proves that “thing” of
theirs got “birthed”. But that thing is NOT you! You were “born”.

So why not carry a method of ‘identi cation’ that re ects those life characteristics while
distinguishing you from other living humans? What life characteristics might that
identi cation re ect?

1. Write down the year, month and day on which you were born.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

2. Now write down the exact minute of your rst breath, using 24 hour time e.g. 1547
(3.47pm)

 Canʼt recall? Doesnʼt matter. You were the one who took that breath, so who can
argue? If you’re unsure, let the number come to you intuitively. Write it down, right
now. Own it from this moment on. Itʼs now your exclusive property. It proves that
you live.
‘ Natural persons’ never took a rst breath and never will! ‘Arti cial persons’ never
took a rst breath and never will! But you did. You live.
3. Now add your blood group to the list, e.g. AB+.

Now you have another ʻidenti erʼ that proves you live. ‘Arti cial persons’ and ‘natural
persons’ donʼt have any life blood; you do!

4. Now assemble all that into a number that is uniquely you.

5. Add the name your parents gave you.

Don’t use the “Ms. Natural PERSON” or “MR. ARTIFICIAL PERSON” kind of name that
appears on your drivers licence or ʻbirthʼ certi cate, but the name you actually go by.

6. Add a portrait photo of you to show that you are alive.

Donʼt use a copy of the one on government records showing who the ʻnatural personʼ is.
Thatʼs an arti cial creation of theirs so any photo of you on their books is a fraudulent
misrepresentation of their making. And don’t be afraid to SMILE! Or pose! It shows you are
alive!

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?

7. Be sure to state that this “Life Characteristic” identi cation data relates to a living being
to the exclusion of all others.
Does this data more accurately re ect your life characteristics? Shouldn’t that
information be included on any identi cation that genuinely identi es you as a living
being?
Such a card is not meant to used to prove to others who you are. Its purpose is to prove
that you are NOT any other entity, real, ctional, ʻnaturalʼ or ʻarti cialʼ; that you are NOT a
ʻpersonʼ; that you are a living breathing being. And the inclusion of life characteristics
make this distinction certain. (DNA coding may later be used in addition to the life
characteristics mentioned above).
Man is an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness, and that each human being has
the sovereign right to their own life and to that which is required to sustain it. It is now
time to correct the injustice of Corporate government. Their days are numbered…. . And
by doing so, in peaceful de ance, we will stop consenting to act on behalf of these false
entities, created by government for its own bene t.

If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?