The Game - Is it all an Illusion?

A walk through definitions and experiences as a theater game piece

Learning along a path of choice - personas to experience

Preface

Words that end in -er, -or, -ist, -ship are labels and titles that come with duties and responsibilities. They are game pieces.

With this in mind, would you like to play the game piece or believe you are the game piece?

Here is an example:

Owner - must pay taxes on his ‘real property’ as a tenant/resident person, and is accountable to other fictitious entities such as in a body politic [“incorporated county”]. Game Piece

However; a man who owns property is not an ‘owner’ [“unless he so chooses to be”]. This subtle change sets a hierarchy where man is first and he has dominion over the property. An ‘owner’ is a fictitious entity that has duties and responsibilities for the property and may be a tenant or resident while being said ‘owner’.

Another example:

Manager - has duties and responsibilities usually defined in a job description or employment agreement. Game Piece

However; if you are a man who manages something, you may not have any paper limitation.

Another example:

Farmer - has duties and responsibilities and is subject to legal codes, and agency regulations. Game Piece

However; a man who at times plants seeds is first a man above all else and is exercising his rights to his property in any capacity that man so chooses.

Biologist - has duties and responsibilities and is required to have a level of formal institutional education, a degree, and some sort of job description. Game Piece

However; a man who observes life in the world is not limited to a job. The man may work toward studying biology.

One word is limiting, while the man who exercises free will is not limited.

We are taught to “be” something when we grow up. Why? Why not be who you are [“a man or woman”] and experience anything that does not cause harm to another of mankind? Purchase any books you desire, read anything, observe the world and the universe, and be a man with no limits.

Choice of labels impacts our experience

In previous articles, we [“ ‘we’ being the man, the men and women who help edit, and the persona of shire news”] have shared the definition of person in detail from Black’s Law Dictionary, US code, and what that means related to our names and titles we take on.

This article will attempt to show how the legal and lawful definitions of the words and terms prove through those definitions that we choose titles and hence, to be a game piece. While on this planet we chose to be a ‘person’ or take on a ‘persona’. We will also touch on the idea that a man or woman can choose a limiting persona for living experiences. That idea of taking on a persona is what has created the legal and law definitions. In the legal society, we are expected to be held to those definitions and the limitations and the consequences that come with them, even when we do not know what they mean.

Words and Terms

Here is a quick clarification on the difference between a ‘word’ and a ‘term’.

word - A vocal sound or combination of vocal sounds, used as a symbol to embody or signify an idea or thought, especially a notion or conception, and forming one of the elements of language ; a single, independent utterance, forming usually a constituent unit of a sentence ; vocable. A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, editor in chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903), p. 2078.

term - A word or expression used to express or designate some fixed or definite thing; a word having a limited and specific meaning, naming and characterizing some particular object, quality, state, or the like ; especially, a technical word or expression, as in the sciences, arts, trades, and the like. Id. at 1859.

Being Human

One of the biggest legal definition tricks is the word ‘human’.

Please follow along and drive down into the actual meaning and use of the word by looking at the words within the definitions and learning what they mean. This shines a light on the actual meaning and use.

We will start with defining ‘human’ per the 3rd Edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary - 1969. This text has been chosen as some of the other law definition books do not have ‘human’ as a defined word that can be used as a term in legal codes.

Then look at the words within the definition and the parts of the word.

human - Of the form and characteristics of a man.

Notice how it does not say a ‘human’ is a man? Because it is not a man - it only looks and may act like a man. Game Piece

Breaking the word into its parts ‘hu-man’ or ‘hue-man’ is the shade or color of a man.

Dictionary.com

hue [ hyooor, often, yoo ]

noun

1. a gradation or variety of a color; tint: pale hues.

2. the property of light by which the color of an object is classified as red, blue, green, or yellow in reference to the spectrum.

3. color: all the hues of the rainbow.

4. form or appearance.

5. complexion.

human

[ hyoo-muhnor, often, yoo‑ ]

adjective

1. of, relating to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.

2. consisting of people: the human race.

3. of or relating to the social aspect of people: human affairs.

4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.

human being - A person, male or female.

Again, notice how it does not state a ‘human being’ is the same as a man or woman? A human is the color of man. Ever hear of color of law?

Human is an adjective. It colors the fact of the word man. In the case of ‘human being’, ‘human’ colors the fact of the word ‘being’.

Human is not a man, but a person and an adjective. As we have previously covered, a person is a natural thing, paper thing, and fictitious entity in the form of individuals, corporations, franchise, etc... based on US codes and based on the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary. A person can be a natural thing/person, but is not a man. So, a human being is a thing with a gender assigned. Game Piece

What about ‘being’ as the second word of ‘human being’?

being - Noun: A person; a living thing. The present participle of the verb “to be;” equivalent to the pleading of the words “which is".” The word has been held to be sufficient as an averment [“an allegation”] of an existing fact [“human”]. Effect added

thing(s) - Inanimate objects. As the subject matter of a bequest, effects, goods, assets, or property, dependent upon the intent of the testator as such appears from the will.

natural - Occurring according to the usual course of nature or according to the operation of natural laws, which, in the particular case, may be unusual and extraordinary in common experience.

allegation - An assertion; a statement of fact in a pleading; a statement of what one can prove; the positive assertion of a fact. The technical name for a pleading in an ecclesiastical court.

Summary:

A ‘human’ has the appearance or color [“form and characteristics”] of man, however is a person as a ‘human being’ with a gender. It is a living thing as an inanimate object that is naturally occurring and if taken action on in an ecclesiastical court there is sufficient information to plead the condition as fact of human. Game Piece

Hmmmm…

Previous articles covered jurisdictions. The jurisdiction of the Air includes ecclesiastical court and exists in the US as the municipal district courts [“municipal is air and district is military/sea”]. The American municipal district courts operate in both a military ‘district’ [“admiralty and maritime - sea”] and ecclesiastical/municipal jurisdiction.

Does this make you wonder why any man or woman would want to be considered a human or human being?

So, what about the definition of ‘man’? Ballentine’s:

man - In the generic sense [“meaning general and not specific”], a human being, whether male or female; all human beings; mankind. In the narrow sense, a male human being who has reached the age of majority, at least an age above puberty. State v Seiler, 106 Wis 343, 82 NW 167.

Notice the built in contradiction? A human has a resemblance, form, characteristic of man. Yet, generally a man can choose to be a human being and narrowly a male human being who is above puberty. Yet, these point to each other without ‘being’ the same. This seeming contradiction makes for a lack of fact 'being’ established when using the word ‘human’ or ‘human being’ as it is an adjective coloring the fact. That makes it an opinion and cannot be tried at court. As such, a ‘human being’ or ‘human’ is a game piece. Yet, a man can play the ‘human’ in the game.

Those who wish to control mankind label them as ‘human’ or ‘human beings’, and with this title, they are presumed to be less than man and are chattel or disconnected property.

Bouvier’s:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: "of offences against man, some are more immediately against the king, other's more immediately against the subject." Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offences against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man." Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2.

2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.

How can something that has the characteristics and form of man, but not explicitly defined as a man, also be the reference for a man? It seems, much like the word ‘individual’, a man can choose to be a human or human being, but a human or human being is not necessarily a man as it is an adjective and adjective/pronoun combination respectively. This establishes a hierarchy of man first, then human being. Anything below man in the hierarchy is a game piece.

Summary on Man:

A man can chose to be anything. But, a thing cannot choose to be a man.

A man can create a corporation, but a corporation cannot create a man.

A man can choose to be a corporation, but a corporation cannot become a man.

A man can choose to be a person, Person, Persons, but a person cannot create a man.

If one were to recognize that all titles that are not a man, or one of mankind, are in fact game pieces to be played for your benefit, then it may make more sense.

Law

By classifying yourself as a human being, you are automatically subject to lesser courts as a game piece. What law do you think a man is subject to? Is he the one who plays the piece in the game?

Jural society vs assembly

The distinction of the words ‘society’ and ‘assembly’ is to show where mankind in a republican form of government has authority for law. This ‘assembly’ is similar to the hundreds in the English Isles before the Norman Conquest.

A society can either be an association or company of persons; or it can be people as the public in general. Game Pieces

An ‘assembly’ is different than a ‘society’. Assemblies are where people meet to deliberate on their rights [“Black’s 2nd Edition”] and these are guaranteed by the constitution. Specifically, the lower or more numerous branch of legislature in many of the states are called “Assembly” [“capital ‘A’”], but an assembly can be ANY political meeting required to be held by law. This is the basis for the republican form of government.

On persons…

Per Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition - American Constitutional Law Definitions

IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun. 2.

2. It is an imbecility or sterility of mind, and not a perversion of the understanding. Chit. Med. Jur. 345, 327, note s; 1 Russ. on Cr. 6; Bac. Ab. h. t. A; Bro. Ab. h. t.; Co. Litt. 246, 247; 3 Mod. 44; 1 Vern. 16; 4 Rep. 126; 1 Bl. Com. 302. When a man cannot count or number twenty, nor tell his father's or mother's name, nor how old he is, having been frequently told of it, it is a fair presumption that, he is devoid of understanding. F. N. B. 233. Vide 1 Dow, P. C. now series, 392; S. C. 3 Bligh, R. new series, 1. Persons born deaf, dumb, and blind, are, presumed to be idiots, for the senses being the only inlets of knowledge, and these, the most important of them, being closed, all ideas and associations belonging to them are totally excluded from their minds. Co. Litt. 42 Shelf. on Lun. 3. But this is a mere presumption, which, like most others, may be rebutted; and doubtless a person born deaf, dumb, and blind, who could be taught to read and write, would not be considered an idiot. A remarkable instance of such an one may be found in the person of Laura Bridgman, who has been taught how to converse and even to write. This young woman was, in the year 1848, at school at South Boston. Vide Locke on Human Understanding, B. 2 c. 11, 12, 13; Ayliffe's Pand. 234; 4 Com. Dig. 610; 8 Com. Dig. 644.

3. Idiots are incapable of committing crimes, or entering into contracts. They cannot of course make a will; but they may acquire property by descent. Vide, generally, 1 Dow's Parl. Cas. new series, 392; 3 Bligh's R. 1; 19 Ves. 286, 352, 353; Stock ou the Law of Non Compotes Mentis; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

Notice how ‘idiots’ are also ‘persons’ with no distinction between the two? It is presumed that a man who does not know the law and requires representation is an idiot. Then all other presumptions of the idiot apply including his property, handling of his affairs, etc…

Do you want representation of a lawyer or attorney and the automatic presumption of being an idiot; a person, a game piece?

Persona

3rd Edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary - 1969:

people - The state [“notice lower case ‘s’?”]; the nation; any consolidated political body. United States v Three Friends, 166 US 1, 41L Ed 897, 17 S Ct 495. The subjects or inhabitants of a nation. The Pizarro (US) 2 Wheat 227, 246, 4 L Ed 226, 231. Effect added

“The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves the people,” etc.

In case there is any confusion, ‘people’ are a body politic. They are not a singular man or woman. Game Pieces

persona - (Civil Law.) A person.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

PERSONA. Lat. In the civil law. Character, in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him. Thus one man may unite many characters, (persona;.) as, for example, the characters of father and son, of master and servant. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 129.

In ecclesiastical law. The rector of a church instituted and inducted, for his own life, was called "persona mortalis;" and any collegiate or conventual body, to whom the church was forever appropriated, was termed "persona immortalis." Jacob.

The unique reality of the word ‘person’ and ‘persona’ is that they have a relatively consistent meaning in both the word definition and understanding as well as the legal statutory term definitions. The unique part of statutory definitions of the terms is they are very consistent and terms never includes a man or woman. That means, a ‘person’ volunteers to be a part of the play of legal if they believe they are constrained by the term definitions.

inhabitant(s) - A word impossible of precise and inclusive definition, since the meaning varies according to the context in which it appears, particularly where the matter is one of determining the legislative intent of a statute. 25 Am J2d Dom § 10. Narrowly, a dweller or householder, whether he be a tenant in fee simple, a life tenant, a tenant for years, a tenant at will, or one who has no interest in the premises other than that it is his habitation and dwelling. One having a domicile in a particular place. 25 Am J2d Dom § 10. One domiciled in or having a fixed residence in a given locality. Anno: 53 ALR 1394. One, who, although he may not be a citizen, dwells or resides in a place permanently, or has a fixed residence therein, as distinguished from an occasional lodger or visitor. Re Wrigley (NY) 4 Wend 602, 603. Synonymous with the term “resident” where used in a general sense in a statute respecting requisites to jurisdiction of an action for divorce. 24 Am J2d Div & S § 247. For income tax purposes: - sometimes regarded as the equivalent of a domiciled person; at other times regarded as a resident. Anno: 82 ALR 982. A corporation in the state of incorporation. 36 Am J2d For Corp § 34. Effect added

Notice how the word ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are not used in this definition? Also, notice how the term ‘inhabitant’ does reference it being used as a term in statutes. Game Piece

When investigating statutes it is always circular back to a ‘person’. The statutes do not define a man or woman. Again, the choice is left to the man or woman. There are a few exceptions where the word ‘women’ is referenced but not defined.

Game of Life

The consistency of the words, terms and definitions indicate it is by design. We choose to be a part of the game of life and the legal statutes. This understanding does require some digging and recognition of the different words, terms, and how they are being used.

A good case to reference:

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p 93.

Then ask: am i an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a Game Piece? Do i have substance? Do i wish to be subject to an artificial world with fictitious entities having control and jurisdiction over i? It is your choice how to experience the game of life.

What If - The Game?

The definitions above, the examining of the words within the definitions, and the observation of the use of those words [“especially in statutes”], demonstrate that the legal system is a world of fictitious entities controlled by other fictitious entities. All are paper creations and manipulations of words which allow for an assumption on the behalf of the masses.

If all the volumes of words that convert us to fictitious entities, or game pieces, with duties and responsibilities disappeared, what is left to describe mankind and life?

What if… you are here as a piece of creation set in a time and space material world and universe that is simply created to allow for learning what is possible?

What if… the fictitious entities serve to assist in learning?

Part of the game play is in the legal realm and part is within the lawful realm.

What if you realize you are playing the game piece and that you are not actually the game piece [“fictitious entity”]?

What if… you are a spark of the Creator housed in the vessel of the body to learn what is possible and to create?

Game Board of Living and Playing the Fictitious Entity Game Pieces - The game is legal and the man is law

What if the game occurring in this space and time of earth was one of many games to achieve a goal and contribute in some fashion to the growth and learning process?

What if you can choose law or you can choose legal based on what you agree to be - either in the game or playing the game? In order to play the game, you need to read the rules and understand them. Yet, how can any one man know all these definitions and their interactions in one lifetime - all these rules for the game?

What is the end goal?

If this time and space is a construct for experiencing emotions, feelings, senses, and an education of what is possible, do you want to create personas to experience said construct? Do you want to control those personas or do you want to be those personas? Do you want to operate in legal or law?

What if you were conscious that everything is an illusion and you start to participate knowing this fact and using the personas to learn? Would you choose submission to others playing you as their game piece? Or, would you choose fostering the learning process with compassion and love by sharing the rules with others and starting to play the piece instead?

If this is a construct and everything is a choice, is good and evil real? Or, are they simply choices in the experience?

We characterize things as evil when it causes harm or pain in another of mankind. But, is evil [“ ‘live’ backwards - an inversion”] simply an interference on the personas here to further the learning process? In other words, does everyone have a part to play? What is your part? Are you connected to all the other souls on this planet and in the universe? Can you tap into that shared consciousness of the souls using the game board?

What would be your perspective in this universe if you realized you are simply here learning and you control the rate and volume of that learning? What if death is simply a transition of your soul in the learning process. Would you look at life differently? Would you make the choice to help or hurt others? Would you use law or legal to that end?

Is it possible that some of mankind have come to this conclusion of the game and have decided that imposing their will on other souls who do not know the rules of the game is their duty? Might these same people think that they are above others due to absence of those other souls knowing the rules of the game? It is like cheating in monopoly if you know the rules and the other players do not.

At the same time, others of mankind may have decided to help us along our learning journey in a more compassionate and loving way. Those are a bit hard to find it seems.

Creating Persons

You can create as many ‘persons’ as you want. But, remember, the singular man is not the ‘persons’. Per the Bill of Rights, you should be “secure in your persons” - 4th Amendment. Obviously someone knew the rules when writing the Bill of Rights.

As an important clarification, we should have the ability to do ANYTHING we want in this world as long as it does not cause harm to another of mankind. At no time should we advocate for harm and evil.

Parting thought: If you are part of the Creator/creation/source, and this is an experiential journey with a purpose, does that also mean you ARE the Creator in the form of a spark of life learning about what is possible in the game? Are we then able to connect to that collective consciousness?

Connected Consciousness of Creation