USDA threatens $60,000 fine, federal raid against woman in legal possession of indoor lemon tree

[Sifter]

Well, well... Ravvau.. what you do tell is abolutely REAL.
deserves a thread of its own and a great deal of time and study.

yep!

[Sifter]

the "edit" feature is extremely faulty... it just waits on and on and on.. I know, I'm not really complaining, it's about affordability and I honor that... just gripes me sometimes.. LOL... so, excuse my typos please.

[namaste]

ravvau, thank you for your insight into the legal paradigm that us majority live in.
You state that Man and Woman do not appear in any statute texts. They appear in the Butterworths legal dictionary and refer to them as a 'member of,' male/ female sex. Does this imply a member of a club, corporation or trust, not a member of mankind as per the scriptures?

[Ravvau]

ravvau, thank you for your insight into the legal paradigm that us majority live in.
You state that Man and Woman do not appear in any statute texts. They appear in the Butterworths legal dictionary and refer to them as a 'member of,' male/ female sex. Does this imply a member of a club, corporation or trust, not a member of mankind as per the scriptures?

as i have told you in private... do not use butterworth-less...

it is the most obtusely deficient law dictionary... there are hardly enough pages to it to start a fire... and that is no joke... as you already know... use it for your next bbq namaste...  only there will it provide any form of decent use...  you already have far more superior law dictionaries than that...

it is also one of the last to be created... iow... it is one of the world's newest law dics... so in accord with the maxim of law... ie...  "first in time best in law"... you can use any one of hundreds of dictionaries made prior to it for its abrogation in any law forum...  i can assure you that legal reps and magistrates in australia would never bother using it on a defendant they know is not a fool at or in law...  they would use it only when dealing with those they know are law illiterates...
if any one attempts to invoke such a book in any court of australia... all you need do is raise an objection and correct the mistake by invoking the respective definition out of Blacks or Bouviers... and they will not mention butterworths again...

... but you would not even give them the chance to attempt such such trickery... in your paperwork/instruments... simply place the definitions of all words YOU use in your documents and in court... it is that simple... iow... insert near the top of your instrument... the following:

Start of Definitions: Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language: End of Definitions.

... and with that line.... their word game is over... all you need do is be aware of what they are refering to during proceedings... and whenever they attempt to use a definition based on legalese that you know differs to that of the proper english... again... "I object!" on and for the public record, you are mistaken in your intent of the use of that word.  I bring attention to page XX of Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language where said word is defined as, "...."

and they cannot overrule it...
and that is going in under common or equitable jurisdiction...  if you chose to go in under UCC... there is a code therein that allows for the EXACT same purpose of setting your own definitions of the words to be used in any commercial or admiralty forum...

as for your direct question... and proof of what i say about the uselessness of butterworths...

the term... "a 'member of,' male/ female sex"... at law and more importantly... in law... is what we refer to at law as an oxymoron... because they are trying a slide of hand by attempting to use the word "member" as it is defined in many law dictionaries... including bouviers, as follows:

"One who belongs to an organization"

and an organization at law... is a corporation, a company... a fiction... it has NO LIFE... it is dead.. it is a CORPSE... hence: [color="#0000ff"]corp[/color]oration...

but before bouviers and blacks... and butteworths...

From Websters 1824 dictionary, the word 'member' is defined as:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,member

4. An individual of a community or society...

your remedy... if you allow them grace to use law dictionaries instead of english dictionaries... (which is sort of like implying that you are happy to fight them with one hand tied behind your back)... your remedy is in the word 'society'... ie... An individual of a community or society...

this then allows you to invoke one of the most revered and powerful books of law... one of the very few books in the world known as "books of authoritative law" or "books of authority" (google it)... called "the law of nations"... by vittel (from memory)

therein... the word SOCIETY... is implied and DEFINED as a group of living people... ie men and women... ie nations... yes.. nations.. you and i are both nations of ONE... made of soil and water... we are born of the land and die back into it... that is a FACT of law and science... it goes on to further define it as a group of BLOOD related people... ie a true family... in other words... you have the right at and in law... to refer to yourself in any court.. as... john of the smith society... or john of society smith... instead of john of the family smith... etcetera...

fact being... that as soon as they hear you invoking ANYTHING within any book of authority... they will know that their day will not be a good one....

furthermore... current UN law... ie International Law... is all sourced from the Book of Nations.... and it is... the Supreme Law of the Land today...  so any statute that they try to stand over you with... can easily be overruled by the mere invocation of any related and relevant extract from any related book of authority...

... one thing you will learn one day about the law is... when it comes to finding yourself remedy against pirates rapists of the law... there is MORE than ONE WAY of skinning those cats... its a matter of knowing how...

r

[namaste]

Ravvau, I know of your aversion to Butterworths, it just happened to be the only hard copy legal dictionary close by. Won't be for much longer, Black's 4th is on the way.
Butterworths could be used to start quite a few fires, all 1300+ pages.

I did however quote it wrong. Woman is referred to as member of female sex.
Man, in family law, a person who fulfills the biological criteria for the male sex.

You did say that, (capitals) MAN and WOMAN are not found in any statutory law text.
Man and woman are found in family law and marriage act and also in the Constitution under marriage.

They are in the statute law books, so why are you saying they are not? By the definition of man, it IS a flesh and blood person and not a corporate person.
Does the capital MAN and WOMAN you typed have anything to do with determining what definition is given to them?

[Ravvau]

it seems butterworths has been busy the last few years... the last copy of bworths i was shown had no more than 200 pages... but by the sounds of things there in australia... your judiciary have also been busy... construing not only the word of the law but also the spirit...

a person is a fiction, and organisation, a company... that is well established fact in most all law dics dating back over 100 years...  to then go on and claim that a LIVING MAN or WOMAN is ALSO a "fiction"... is the kind of thing that fairy tales, deceit and FRAUD are made of...

as per PERSON... download and read this:

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-8022cdcc.html

the addition of man/woman into your statutes is a world first... it does not exist in the states or the uk... your authorities are living up to their reputation of running the place as a penal colony to this day... but do not worry about that... it is easily overcome... once you know how to place any related matter under the jurisdiction of equity or scriptural... nowhere in any law of original jurisdiction or in scripture does it state that a living man or woman is a fiction of ANY FORM...  that is all you need to know... and how to express it upon them... which is done by studying the law...

in the constitution... it is ok to state man and woman in the context of marriage... it make no inference to them being persons...  only then is when things become very twisted... and easy to untwist when you know how...

Does the capital MAN and WOMAN you typed have anything to do with determining what definition is given to them?

know well namaste... that ravvau does not play word games as judiciaries do... when i write to people in this context... i do so in plain english... not legalise... the all caps are for accentuation of the words... not for manipulation of their definitions...

[namaste]

the addition of man/woman into your statutes is a world first

It is hardly new, the Australian Constitution did come out in 1901.
Under marriage, it defines it as a voluntary union between one man and one woman, exclusive to all others. ( that is why homosexual marriage cannot be legalized until a referendum is held in favor of.)

To use the biological man and woman in Marriage Act and Family law Act, I see it as bluff, as the man and woman are done away with when one signs PERSONS name on marriage certificate or uses persons name on any family court dealings.

[Ravvau]

a world first is not necessarily a new...  and I did not mention the latter... though it is new to me... then again... i do not read much Australian statutes or its constitution... in fact... i no longer bother with much statutory law from any part of the globe... i have no use nor need for it anymore...

... the authorities have accepted that i am not a statutory entity... that includes the UN and the Hague... as the occupant to the Executor's office of my Estate... and as a UN accepted self-determining minor nation STATE with a standing Declaration of Accession... Statutes of any other nation than my own do NOT apply to me...

I stand by International Law and Trust/Estate Law only... not statutory...  IOW... whatever I say about my Estate... ie my SELF... overstands as law pertaining to my Estate and STATE.... ie ... me.

as i have mentioned before...

I am NOT of this WORLD... I am on and of this Earth...

[Ravvau]

forgot to ask... namaste... are you interested in your constitution? do you intend to use it for remedy of any sort?

[namaste]

Ravvau, that sounds like where we all should be living....beyond the confines of the intangible laws pressed upon us.

There are some gems to be found in the Constitution that will come in handy.

'The supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people.'

The acknowledgement of a Supreme being and the mind of God and many other references to a higher authority; God; also found in the preamble..

Also, the perfect gem for using Gods law: 'The Federal Parliament is a legislative body capable only of exercising enumerated powers. Its powers are determined and limited by actual grants found within the Constitution. Anything not granted to it is denied to it. If it is not granted the power to deal with religion, it cannot legislate concerning religion. It is superfluous to deny to it what is not granted- what it does not possess.'

I am not about to fight for same sex marriage if that is what you thought.

We have gone off topic and I will say that I know of no laws preventing anyone from growing any produce in their yard in Australia, unless it is declared a noxious weed or crosses some by-law. I know of no GM crops here except cotton. Some GM food is imported, but basically, the people don't want it.