Deciphering the jurisdiction of Acts of law...

What
jurisdiction does a statute of law have? Is it of supreme
authority or can statutes be abolished? What jurisdiction
does a man's natural rights fall under and can those
rights be abolished? These are some pretty important
questions that deserved to be addressed.

The Jurisdiction of Acts...

The first order of business is determining the meaning of the word "person" in law.
Why? Because you will find that you will rarely, if at all, find the use of the
word "man" or "natural person" or "human being" in any Statutory Act of law. Is there
a mass deception in play? Hmmm... let's have a look.
The comprehensive definition of the word "person":

PERSON (persn,) n. [L. 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.]. American Dictionary of the English Language Noah Webster
1828

PERSON In law, an individual or incorporated group having certain legal rights

and responsibilities. This has been held to include foreign and domestic
corporations. Compare artificial person; natural person. Canadian Law
Dictionary, Barrons 5th Edition

PERSON A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all
the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it
imposes. The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well
as men. The term may include artificial beings, as corporation, and foreign
corporations, under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due
process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws.

Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being.
Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a
corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having
rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited
extent in our law. Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition

Maxim of Law: Every person is a human being, but not every human being a
person (Omnis persona est homo, sed non vieissim. Blacks Law Dictionary
7th Edition)

Maxim of Law: Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona),

a term of civil law (Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis.
Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition)

Maxim of Law: Husband and wife are considered one person in law (Vir et
uxor censentum in lege una persona Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition)

Maxim of Law: A person is a human being considered with reference to a certain

status (Persona est homo cumstatu quodam consideratus. Blacks Law
Dictionary 7th Edition)

Maxim of Law: The person of a human being can have no price put on
it (Corpus humanum non recipit aestimationem Blacks Law Dictionary 7th
Edition)

Maxim of Law: Towns and

boroughs act as if
persons (Personae vice
fungitur municipium et
decuria. Blacks Law
Dictionary Revised 4th
Edition)

With these principles having

been long established as the truth in
law, how is it that no one is of the
knowledge that the city, town or
county they live in is considered a person? In Mississauga, where I live, a fine's/ticket's
heading reads, The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, meaning: Mississauga is
a "person". An "artificial person" is coming after a "natural person" for the purpose of
extorting funds? An inferior jurisdiction of law declaring supremacy over natural law!?
Or is it courtroom incompetence or even, dare I say, corruption and conspiracy in
maintaining the status quo of oppression?!?
Don't confuse this with corporations being considered "people" or "individuals" -- the
misconception that many activists have. They confuse themselves and others by
believing that corporations are "people" and we are all "persons". To a certain
extent, we are "persons" as defined in law, but the more superior definitions that attach
us to supreme law (Common Law) is "man", "human being", "individual" -- all of which
corporations are not! And the rights attached to "man" and "human being" are natural
rights -- that which are unalienable and protected by our Common Law heritage.
Whereas, an artificial person, once created, then has the capacity of having rights
and duties given to them by another artificial person -- the government, the
very "thing" that created it Please try to understand this of all things: The
government can dictate the rights of an artificial person that it creates, but
it cannot dictate the rights of a natural person without that individual's
consent. And if the government over-steps that individual's boundaries -- crosses the

line -- after consent, that individual can lawfully revoke (verbally or in writing) what
he/she consented to if his/her natural rights are being infringed upon.
Believe it or not, when your parents registered you at birth and obtained a Birth
Certificate, they unknowingly created an "artificial person" -- and that birth certificate
created joinder with the government (but the certificate is government property). For
something to exist "legally" (not lawfully), it must have a name. Or, look at it this way,
can a man or woman exist in the country they were born in without having a Birth
Certificate? Do you really have to register your child? Is it not natural -- God's will -- to
simply just exist? Does Natural Law dictate this or does statutory law dictate it and
which one is supreme? Some food for thought. For more information on this topic watch
the video Meet Your Strawman.
If you can go before a truly "honorable" judge (one who exercises his duty diligently)
with an argument such as the one I filed in court (file the motion well in advance and
hope for a written response from the prosecutors before your trial date), what could
happen may be quite revealing. There is no arguing against principles (Maxims of
Law which also represent The Rule of Law) and words defined in law dictionaries -and anyone who tries, denies their existence. Finding an honorable judge may be
difficult today because, in my experience, they seem few and far between. However, if
enough of us go into court over minor traffic charges or other small issues, we may hope
to open up some eyes and create the change our forefathers envisioned.
Freedom isn't free and it is the duty of all of us to stand up and fight for it in order to
keep it or risk losing it altogether and possibly forever in this day and age.

Until next time, this is the commoner known as Shawn,

with the family name Cassista, educating everyone about
their natural rights -- long established in the fight for
Truth, Freedom and Justice -- with which Liberty
will reign!