Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Paradox of Person – Why “person” is both the central problem and last remnant of remedy for justice in the Western-Legal System
No other concept in Western-Roman Law is arguably more important than “person”– as all statutes, ordinances, case citations, writs, summons, benefits and punishments are founded on the presumed existence of “persons”.
No other concept in Western-Roman Law is more hated and despised than “person” by those who sympathize with the views of people variously described as the “freedom movement” or the “truth movement” or the “patriot movement”. The catch cry for many groups throughout the world in repudiation of the central tenet of “person” is to proclaim “I am not the person” also known as the “strawman argument”.
Despite the protests of countless defendants who continue to be brought into the courts of various nations and provinces around the world that say “I am not the person”, the members of the Private Bar Guilds that now control most courts as private “for profit” businesses seem to have no problem defeating the “strawman argument” by responding with absolute confidence that “you are the person”.
In many respects it may be because the concept of “person” is so fundamental, so ubiquitous throughout the system of Western-Roman Law that those who seek legitimate remedy regard the notion of “person” as abhorant. Some simply dismiss it as a fictional abomination. Other commentators within the freedom movement have successfully erected the mental equivalent to giant “beware of the dog” signs around it.
Yet what is person? What does it actually mean? How is it constructed? Where did it come from? And why?
This is the purpose of this brief article- to attempt to explain by answering the brief questions listed above why the paradox of “person” is both the central problem and last remnant of remedy for justice in the Western-Legal System. We begin with the historic context of the origin of the concept, where it came from and why.
All the world is a stage – the “mask” and the actor
The word “person” comes from the ancient pagan Latin word persona meaning “part or character (of play), appearance or countenance, theatrical mask or death mask”. The Latin word persona in turn is derived from the Ancient Greek term prosopon (πρόσωπον) possessing exactly the same meaning as persona; and
 It was the Ancient Greeks, not Shakespeare that struck upon the notion “all the world is a stage” in the perfection of drama (δρᾶμα) meaning “to act, to take action or to achieve” and nomos (νόμος) meaning “customary law, statutory law, oration of law, or song”. Before television, the radio or the internet, the Ancient Greek philosophers considered the idea of “recreating the events” of an alleged controversy as a means of witnessing the arguments and identifying flaws between the various parties. Thus, the actions of theatre and the dispensation of the law were seen as being intimately linked; and
 The earliest Greek philosophers considered there to be primarily two (2) prosopon (πρόσωπον) being the mask of life, or comedy and the mask of death, or tragedy. Similar to the popularity of television crime and court shows today, the attendance to watch a trial performed by actors at the local amphiteatron (ἀμφιθέατρον) was popular entertainment for the people. Unfortunately, even in ancient Greece the “entertainment value” of witnessing actors play out the parts of a trial to determine the fate of an accused often overshadowed the substance of the case; and
 It was Aristotle in the 4th Century BCE that instituted major reforms within the practice of nomos (νόμος) with a professional class of judges known as ephetai that formed a new professional class of judges to replace the arkhons (or arkhai as singular) of the “the Eleven” and the dikastea being a semi-permanent body of part-time jurors to replace to popular “hordes” that previously would vote on whether someone was to be executed or live if they liked the drama; and
The Pagan Roman Empire continued the same notion as Ancient Greece of theatre and law sharing a natural symbiosis and form. Under the ancient Pagan Roman Empire, the Chief civil and military magistrates invested with imperium were called Consuls and periodically held called ‘consulatio’ – hence where we get the modern English words and concepts of consult and consultation; and
 Below the Consuls were the Praetors and the Tribunes. However, when the Tribunes met in number of three or greater, they had the power to veto laws, decrees and acts of all other magistrates except dictators (consuls granted extraordinary powers under emergency); and
 Similar to other ancient law, Roman law considered oral testimony as primary evidence. Contrary to deliberate manipulation and corruption of history, there was no “professional class” of jurists within Rome. Instead, a citizen would on occasion, if unable to speak clearly, hire an actor to speak in their place as a “persona”. In such circumstances, the actor was sworn to recite the truth as told to them by the accuser or defendant on their testicles (being removed if they lied) – hence the origin of testimony; and
 By the 8th Century CE and the emergence of the Sacre Loi (Sacred Law) of the Carolingian Empire and the first formation of the Catholic Church and Canon Law (in direct opposition to the Holly Roman Empire of Antioch, also known as the Byzantine Empire), the concept of actors or “persona” performing in place of the actual accused or accuser was abolished and considered an abomination against Anglo-Saxon Law; and
 Under the Instatutum, (“Institutions”) of Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) first introduced by Charles Martel in 738 CE, all disputes between smaller estates known under Carolingian law as “peto sessionis” (petty sessions) were to be heard in “Placitum”, while all serious property disputes and crimes carrying the death penalty called “quatio sessionis” were to be heard in “Manorum” being at the Manor Hall of the Baron to whom the accused served.; and
 In accordance with the Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) defined by the Carolingians in the 8th Century, a Placitum was presided over by one (1) to three (3) justices of the peto (petit sessionis) known as Iustitia Petit sworn under solemn oath to uphold and protect the law. The most senior of the Iustitia Peto (Petit) was known as a Praesideo, or if only one Iustitia Peto (Petit) was hearing the matter, he was known as the Praesideo. The term “praesideo” comes from Latin meaning “a guardian, defender, director or ruler of (sacred) law” and is the origin of the word “president”; and
 Significantly, in opposition to the original concept of “persona” by the Romans and prosopon (πρόσωπον) by the Ancient Greeks, the Ango-Saxons considered the oath or vow of a living flesh man or woman as of paramount importance being their “bond” – bringing a return to a principle that was fundamental to Celtic Law including the fact that a man could not be convicted on testimony gained through torture – in other words, our word must be given freely and without duress if it is to be regarded as true and reliable; and
 Contrary to deliberate corruption, the word “person” first appeared in Western-Roman Law as late as the 16th Century through two bodies of work with mysterious origin – the first being the folio of Shakespearian Plays and secondly the production of a suspect work known as Corpus Iuris Civilis in 1583 by Jesuit trained and educated Denis Godefroy. However, unlike its limited use in the times of Ancient Greece and Rome, the creation of “person” was now based on the premise that “all the world is a stage” and that “everyone possesses a person”. Most notably, the treatise of Godefroy attempted to claim these concepts existing as far back as the 6th Century CE by Emperor Justinian of the Holly Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire); and
 One of the most notable philosophers contributing to the spread of “person” was Thomas Hobbes (b. 1588 – d.1679), also beneficiary of Jesuit education and assistance in Paris, who in 1651 published his famous work Leviathan. Hobbes states numerous key arguments concerning the nature and function of person, the most notable for the purpose of this article being: “A person, is he, whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or of any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.”; and “[…] a Person, is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common Conversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himself, or another; and he that acteth another, is said to bear his Person, or act in his name; “; and ” Of Persons Artificial, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor ; and he that owneth his words and actions is the Author: In which case the Actor acteth by Authority. “; and
 The full emergence of “person” in the modern sense did not take full hold in English Law until the Bill of Rights of the openly treasonous Parliament and Judiciary of 1689. Again, to hide its provenance, numerous former statutes were altered or simply re-written to claim the provenance of “person” a from as early as the 13th Century under Edward Ist. The fraud is easily exposed when one compares verified original writings of the 13th Century, 14th Century and even 16th Century; and
 A notable English philosopher of the 17th Century that immensely aided in the synthesis of the fraudulent “canon law” of the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican to English Law was Sir William Blackstone (b.1723 – d. 1780) who in 1765/1766 published the first volume of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, stating: “Rights are however liable to another subdivision, being either, first, those which concern and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things.”; and ” Persons are also divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purpose of society and government. “; and
 The emergence of “person” in Europe beyond England was in the late 18th Century and the start of the 19th Century with the Civil Code of Napoleon being a central statute heralding the emergence of legal persons and statutory persons underpinning future laws; and
 Today, the concept of person is fully integrated into every statute, every ordinance, every instrument and every right of society. The definition of person has also devolved according to Blacks 9th Edition (pg 1257) as “1. A human being – also termed natural person. 2. The living body of a human being. 3. An entity”. Is this an accurate definition based on the foundation of law that is supposed to underpin Western-Roman Law, or is this definition of “person” a deliberate corruption?
 As for the vast majority of honest lawyers, judges, magistrates and court officials who have suffered as a the silent majority while the corrupt minority destroy the law, it is hoped that you also find hope and possibly the strength to hold these colleagues to account for their actions.