Persons, Residents, Inhabitants

The plural of the word person is people. NOT persons. Do not be fooled.

The word persons is a legal term that is only abstractly related to people.

Your government has distinct definitions for different categories of people.  Example: The U.S. Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 S.Ct 617, 626:
“… it was decided that the word `citizen’ …. was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident’, `inhabitant’, or `person’ …”

But the 14th Amendment made 14th Amendment citizenship somewhat synonymous with person.  (Except that corporations can be persons — and Roe v. Wade determined that a fetus was not a 14th amendment citizen but other decisions said a fetus could be a person. See my essay on Abortion and my essay on Corporations.)


The word “person” is used in many laws.  If you don’t know what the term means, you might be fooled into thinking that you are one.  People are not persons.

Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha, 442 U.S. 653 at page 667:

“[I]n common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

There is a maxim of law Homo vocabulum est; persona juris civilities. “Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law”.

Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery. Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.  It is from the same Roman civil law that reduces an ungrateful freedman to his original condition of slavery.   And yes, American Civil Law is the old Roman Law.

The legislated word person does indeed refer to natural people, but only to those who have a status within the government.  The word Person also includes corporations, municipalities, universities, labor organizations, partnerships, trustees, legal representatives, and illegitimate children. And sometimes a viable fetus.  The word person also includes individuals who are officers of corporations while making decisions for the corporation.

Notice that the lawyers put the word “persons” in quotes.

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13 (1910):

Page 137 ”This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use … A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”
Page 162 “A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons.  Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.”

For example:  the non-proper noun that is named on your driver’s license is an artificial fiction of law. The government calls it a person, even though only proper nouns can be a person (different definition), place or thing.  There is more information in my article on Ancient Law and in the definition of Fictions of Law.  Here….

People are not persons.

Church of Scientology v. U.S. Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417 @425:

 “the word ‘person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1.”

All men are created equal.  They remain equal until they make themselves unequal by swearing oaths of allegiance to artificial man-made (graven) images.  Your status with the state makes you subject to the artificial State government.

For example, the US Supreme Court case that legalized government divorce in 1888, Maynard v. Hill 125 US 190, used the word status three times, and each occurrence of the word status was in italics, to refer to the type of marriage that can be divorced.  At page 212, the Supreme Court confirmed that real “marriage is a relation for life” (not the divorceable type of marriage).  And indeed, real marriage had always been enforced by courts because it is until death they depart.   Marriage was defined in the Garden of Eden, and cannot be changed by man.  Real marriage is until death.  But by getting a marriage license, you agree that you don’t have a right to marry.  It is only this fake marriage that is divorceable. If you were married by the state’s permission, then the courts must rule that the marriage contract was never legal and that all children are bastards (By the way, bastards are property of the state).  The original definition of marriage is still valid. Traditional marriage cannot be divorced.

Persons — natural or artificial — are controlled by their creator

U.S. Supreme Court, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

“That corporations are, in law, for civil purposes, deemed persons is unquestionable. And the citation from 2 Inst. 736 establishes that they are so deemed within the purview of penal statutes. Lord Coke, there, in commenting on the statute of 31 Eliz. c. 7, respecting the erection of cottages, where the word used is, ‘no person shall,’ etc., says, ‘this extends as well to persons politic and incorporate as to natural persons whatsoever.'”

Neither does the fact that a corporation is engaged in the interstate commerce in any manner abridge the protection and applicable immunities accorded by the amendments. The corporation of which the petitioner was an officer was chartered by a State, and over it the General Government has no more control than over an individual citizen of that State. Its power to regulate commerce does not carry with it a right to dispense with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, to unreasonably search or seize the papers of an individual or corporation engaged in such commerce, or deprive him or it of any immunity or protection secured by either amendment.

It is true that there is a power of supervision and inspection of the inside workings of a corporation, but that belongs to the creator of the corporation. If a State has chartered it, the power is lodged in the State. If the nation, then in the nation; and it cannot be exercised by any other authority. It is in the nature of the power of visitation.”

Some courts say that sovereignty exists in the people, but not in persons:

Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939 @ 943:

“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion.  Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.”

Comment: notice that persons are subordinate agents of people.

Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha, 442 U.S. 653 at page 667:

“[I]n common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

Your birth did not voluntarily submit yourself to government.
An oath of office, or of allegiance, or a perjury oath submits yourself to such a form of government.

1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey:

“… Our government is founded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people”

1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”

US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:

“The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…”

US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:

“… The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them.   But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please.  …The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.”

US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370:

“While sovereign powers are delegated to … the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people..”

Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case.  You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It’s as if servants do not make rules for their masters.  It’s as if the Citizens who created government were their masters.  It’s as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority.  You are the higher authority.  Imagine that!  Isn’t it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works?  Isn’t it a shame that you enlisted to obey them?

US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421:

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”

As we study legal definitions of the word `person’, you will notice the term persons are defined as non-sovereigns.  A sovereign is someone who is not subject to legislated statutes.  A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes.

US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):

“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):

“Since in common usage the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258  67 SCt677 (1947):

“In common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.”

US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:

“Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530:

“In common usage the word `person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.”

In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that “In United States, sovereignty resides in people… the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”,

That’s right!  According to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons.
This all makes sense; after all, servants don’t make rules for their masters.

Also notice that the census does not count people, it counts persons.  Explained in my book on the Census.


Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

 INHABITANT, noun A dweller; one who dwells or resides permanently in a place, or who has a fixed residence, as distinguished from an occasional lodger or visitor; as the inhabitant of a house or cottage; the inhabitants of a town, city, county or state.  So brute animals are inhabitants of the regions to which their natures are adapted; and we speak of spiritual beings, as inhabitants of heaven.
1. One who has a legal settlement in a town, city or parish.  The conditions or qualifications which constitute a person an inhabitant of a town or parish, so as to subject the town or parish to support him, if a pauper, are defined by the statutes of different governments or states.


In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial US v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript.  On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims, in court, that “an individual is somebody with a social security number.”


Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, at pages 78-79: “The terms resident and citizen are not synonymous”.
The word resident keeps getting redefined and means something very different after the 14th Amendment forced the states to adapt statutory definitions of resident in order to accept those freed slaves who applied for federal benefits.
The Constitution requires presidents to be residents, whereas Senators and Congressmen must not be inhabitants.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

RESIDENT, adjective [Latin residens.].
Dwelling or having an abode in a place for a continuance of time, but not definite; as a minister resident at the court of St. James.  A B is now resident in South America.
Resident, noun
1. One who resides or dwells in a palce for some time.  A B is now resident in London.
2. A public minister who resides at a foreign court.  It is usually applied to ministers of a rank lower to that of embassadors.

Bouviers’ 1856 Law Dictionary, still prior to the 14th Amendment:

RESIDENT, international law. A minister, according to diplomatic language, of a third order, less in dignity than an ambassador, or an envoy. This term formerly related only to the continuance of the minister’s stay, but now it is confined to ministers of this class.
2. The resident does not represent the prince’s person in his dignity, but only his affairs. His representation is in reality of the same nature as that of the envoy; hence he is often termed, as well as the envoy, a minister of the second order, thus distinguishing only two classes of public ministers, the former consisting of ambassadors who are invested with the representative character in preeminence, the latter comprising all other ministers, who do not possess that exalted character. This is the most necessary distinction, and indeed the only essential one. Vattel liv. 4, c. 6, 73.
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, published in 1891 long after the 14th Amendment, gives this definition of Resident:

RESIDENT: A tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord’s land, and not depart from the same, a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. 9 Wend. 11.”
A resident is affixed to his lord’s land and has no liberty.

A resident has no liberty.  Here is the definition of liberty:

Liberty defined

That’s right!  A resident is a slave on the plantation.  And is not allowed to leave.

An earlier definition of resident, in Vattel’s Law of Nations Chapter 19, says that residents are aliens who do not enjoy the rights of citizenship. (Here…)

not citizen.

Denizen is an obscure legal term. Here is an excerpt from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

Apparently you can get a passport as a Denizen.  (according to this article)


*  ~ ~ ~  *          *  ~ ~ ~  *          *  ~ ~ ~  *

(Symbolism in the Capitol building: Young America’s liberty cap was removed by the Roman republic after 1868 and ended up on the Senate Seal in 1885.  The ungrateful freedman became a resident. Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery. Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.)

Fresco on the Capitol dome canopy.
From Art In The U.S. Capitol, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, House Document 94-660

Young America was granted liberty by his owner.  While he is wearing a liberty cap, he is turning all American agriculture over to the Roman goddess.

Unfortunately for you, the foreign IRS is still reaping your produce. The IRS payroll is paid by the Department of Agriculture (proof…). You are the crop being harvested. You are made from the dirt of the ground. (Genesis 2:7, 3:19 and 18:28, 1st Corinthians 15:47, Luke 3:8, etc.). You are the agriculture being traded here. Traded for a little temporary liberty. All government regulated agriculture still belongs to Rome, which is why you pay property tax on “your” property.

In heraldry the highest authority is at the top. The IRS eagle logo has agriculture as the highest authority.

In heraldry, the highest authority is at the top. In 1885 the Seal of the U.S. Senate changed to show America’s removed Liberty Cap as the only authority remaining.

As was stated above, the American Civil Law is the old Roman Law.  Here is a statue of a Roman conqueror.  It was constructed in 1893 by Daniel Chester French, the same sculptor who made the seated Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial. The 65 foot tall sculpture was on a 35 foot tall base, making it 100 feet tall overall. It faced the Administration Building. The right hand held a globe, which an eagle had conquered . The left hand grasped a spear with the removed liberty cap. There were lights that shone out at night from the diadem.

*  ~ ~ ~  *          *  ~ ~ ~  *          *  ~ ~ ~  *

Caution: only a resident can get a driver’s license.  If you apply for a license, you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord’s land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant.  Further Proof: the

Supreme Court keeps saying that states cannot regulate the right to travel.  [U.S. v. Wheeler 254 U.S. 281, 293 in 1920 and in U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 in 1966. and an interstate welfare case Shipiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 in 1969]  The right to travel is so basic that it is not even mentioned in your Constitution.  If your right to travel is regulated, it is probably because you asked for permission to travel.  There are hundreds of cases that prove this.  Read my essay on driving.

You are the one that has to decide whether you want to live in a nation that protects your right to travel, or one that resorts to brutal force to regulate your travel.  If they can regulate such a basic right, they can easily regulate buying and selling.  If you actually WANT them to regulate travel, then I remind you “he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.”  If you are bold enough to believe, as does the Supreme Court, that your Creator endows you with an inalienable right to travel, then you will constantly be put in jail by a confederation of beast powers.  If this is enough to wear out the saints, then you cannot dismiss a license as evidence of a beast mark in your right hand.

Caution: only a resident can register to vote.  If you register to vote you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord’s land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant.  If this sounds like you are the secured collateral for a bond issue, there is a reason for this.

Caution: Before you go claiming that you are an inhabitant, know that the modern legal definition of inhabitant implies “a more fixed and permanent abode” than a resident.  This is contrary to the use of this word in both the Articles of Confederation and in your Constitution.  It is contrary to the use of the term “inhabitants” that is inscribed on the Liberty Bell.  According to your Constitution, Presidents must be residents of their state, whereas Congressmen must NOT be inhabitants of their state.
The definition of resident may also imply that there is an in rem duty to manage something belonging to the government.  More about this when we study the Constitutions use of the term “resident”.
Numbers 23:9 Do not count yourself as a resident.

You are under a legal disability and must be represented by a lawyer.   See Attornment under the topic of Lawyers to find out how they affix you to the land.


A pauper is one who is supported by public funds.  Paupers cannot have rights.  The Articles of Confederation excluded paupers from ANY rights of citizenship.  Article IV of the Articles of Confederation requires:
“… the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;…”

More information about paupers is in the topic Welfare.

More information about enslavement by attornment in the topic Lawyers.

*  ~ ~ ~  *