I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.

Some would say that I am a ‘natural’ person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?

To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word ‘person’.

Person – The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”

Person – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”

Person – Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a “natural” person). 2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). –

Person – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are “persons” in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. –

Person, noun. per’sn. – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin 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.]

legal person – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity – legal fiction – of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn’t it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Well….. I am not “the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation”. I am not “labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” So, I cannot be a ‘person’ under this part of the definition.

The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an “individual”. Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a “human being,” which they define by stating “(i.e. natural person)”. So let’s first check to see if I am an “individual”.

Individual – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines “individual” as follows: “As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.”

Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a ‘person’, and since ‘individual’ denotes a single ‘person’ as distinguished from a group or class, I can’t be an ‘individual’ under this definition either. But I see the term ‘natural person’ used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a ‘natural’ person, since I know I am not an ‘artificial’ one.

I could not find the term ‘Natural person’ defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word ‘natural’ for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person…

Natural – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines ‘Natural’ as follows: “Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word “artificial”. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal”; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.”

Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word ‘man’ means), or by influences of civilization? I don’t think so. Am I ‘wild’, or ‘untutored’? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word ‘artificial’, it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a ‘natural’ person, under this definition of the word ‘natural’. So the term ‘natural person’ cannot apply to me.

Black’s Law Dictionary also used the term ‘human being’, and although Black’s defined it as a ‘natural person’, maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a ‘human being’. ‘Human’ or ‘human being’ does not appear to have a ‘legal’ definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster’s Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.

Human – Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘human’ as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] “Sprung of humans that inhabit earth.” …To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words ‘Hue’ (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can’t go there, because the word would then mean ‘colored man’!

Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I’m not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word ‘man’ through Webster’s because there appears to be no legal definition for ‘man’.

Man – Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘man’ as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.

Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an ‘individual’, so I cannot be considered ‘of the human race’; and since I’m not of the human race, I can’t be ‘a human being’, and I’ve also been shown that I’m not ‘a person’ either.

When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word ‘Caucasian’, listed for race (they don’t seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a ‘Caucasian’). So back to the definitions of ‘Caucasian”.

Caucasian – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines ‘Caucasian’ as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.

Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be ‘white’, but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let’s see what an ‘older’ Black’s Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).

Caucasian – Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines “Caucasian’ As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.

That’s interesting, it appears that ‘white racist Aryan’ groups, like ‘Aryan Nations’ types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even ‘Caucasians’ under this definition, so they can’t be from the ‘White’ Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older ‘Semitic’ language referred to in Black’s Law Dictionary).

Back to Noah’s Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word ‘Caucasian’.

Caucasian – Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘Caucasian’ as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.

OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are ‘persons’ and some of them are ‘individuals’, and some ‘Natural persons’ do exist, of this I have no doubt, I’ve met some of them. There are also many that I believe are ‘Humans’, or ‘Human beings’, these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However…

My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a ‘Caucasian’. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a ‘Caucasian male’. I am also a follower of the Scriptural Messiah, commonly called a Christian. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Christian Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a ‘Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male’……. or an ‘LBCCM’ – Cool – Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Christian ‘White’ Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus ………Hummmmmmmmmm??

assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/Iamnotaperson.html

_______________________________________________________________

For the ‘Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male’

The Caucasus or Caucas is a geopolitical region at the border of Europe and Asia. It is home to the Caucasus Mountains, including Europe’s highest mountain (Mount Elbrus).

North Caucasus comprises:

South Caucasus comprises:

The word Caucasus derives from Caucas, the purported ancestor of the North Caucasians.[1] He was a son of Togarmah, grandson of Biblical Noah‘s third son Japheth. According to Leonti Mroveli, after the fall of the Tower of Babel and the division of humanity into different languages, Togarmah settled with his sons: Kartlos, Haik (Georgian: ჰაოს, Haos), Movakos, Lekos (Lak people),Heros[disambiguation needed] (Kingdom of Hereti), Kavkasos, and Egros (Kingdom of Egrisi) between two inaccessible mountains, presumably Mount Ararat and Mount Elbrus.

Alternative origins are: From a Pelasgian word for “mountain” or from a Scythian word meaning “snow-white”

The region has many different languages and language families. There are more than 50 ethnic groups living in the region.[7] No less than three language families are unique to the area, but also Indo-European languages such as Armenian and Ossetic, and the Altaic language Azerbaijani are local to the area.

Today the peoples of the Northern and Southern Caucasus tend to be either Eastern Orthodox Christians, Oriental Orthodox Christians, or Sunni Muslims. Shia Islam has had many adherents historically in Azerbaijan, located in the eastern part of the region.

Located on the peripheries of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, the region has been an arena for political, military, religious, and cultural rivalries and expansionism for centuries. Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire conquered the territory from the Qajars.[5]

Ancient kingdoms of the region included Armenia, Albania, Colchis and Iberia, among others. These kingdoms were later incorporated into various Iranian empires, including Media, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and Sassanid Empire. In 95-55 BC under the reign of Armenian king of kings Tigranes the Great, Kingdom of Armenia became an empire, including besides Kingdom of Armenia, vassals Iberia, Albania, Parthiaand afew Arab tribes Atropatene, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Assyria, Nabataean kingdom, Judea and Atropatene, stretching from Caucasian Mountains to Egypt and from Mediterranean Sea toCaspian Sea, including a territory of 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi), and becoming the last strong Hellenist king, and the strongest in the region by 67 BC. By this time, Zoroastrianism had become the dominant religion of the region (except Kingdom of Armenia); however, the region would go through two other religious transformations. Owing to the rivalry between Persia and Rome, and later Byzantium, the latter would invade the region several times, although it was never able to hold the region.

However, because Kingdom of Armenia(301 AD, the first nation to adopt Christianity as state religion) Caucasian Albania and Georgia had become a Christian entity, Christianity began to overtake Zoroastrianism. With the Islamic conquest of Persia, the region came under the rule of the Arabs. And soon Emirate of Armenia was formed.But after several rebellions in 884\885 AD Kingdom of Armenia became independent, and several times crushed Arab armies. At that timeKingdom of Armenia capital was Ani, with a population of 200,000 and a city of “1001 churches”. It was at its peak under the reign of Gagik I, when it stretched fromByzantine Empire to Caucasian Albania, from Caucasian Iberia to Mesopotamia, including also vassal states such as Caucasian Albania and Caucasian Iberia, until in 1045 AD the kingdom was conquered by Byzantine Empire. In XII century Georgian king David the Builder drove the Muslims out from Caucasus and made theKingdom of Georgia a strong regional power. In 1194–1204 Georgian Queen Tamar‘s armies crushed new Turkish invasions from the south-east and south and launched several successful campaigns into Turkish-controlled Southern Armenia. Georgian Kingdom continued military campaigns outside of Caucasus. As a result of her military campaigns and the temporary fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1204, Georgia became the strongest Christian state in the whole Near Eastarea. The region would later be conquered by the Ottomans, Mongols, local kingdoms and khanates, as well as, once again, Persia, until its conquest by Russia.

The region was unified as a single political entity twice – during the Russian Civil War (Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic) from 9 April 1918 to 26 May 1918, and under the Soviet rule (Transcaucasian SFSR) from 12 March 1922 to 5 December 1936.

In modern times, the Caucasus became a region of war among the Ottoman Empire, Iran and Russia, and was eventually conquered by the latter (seeCaucasian Wars).

In the 1940s, the Chechens and Ingush (480,000 altogether), along with the Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks (120,000), Kurds and Caucasus Germans(almost 200,000) were deported en masse to Central Asia and Siberia. Eric D. Weitz wrote, “By 1948, according to Nicolas Werth, the mortality rate of the 600,000 people deported from the Caucasus between 1943 and 1944 had reached 25 percent.”[6]

Following the end of the Soviet Union, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent in 1991. The Caucasus region has been subject to various territorial disputes since the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to the Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994), the Ossetian-Ingush conflict (1989–1991), theWar in Abkhazia (1992–1993), the First Chechen War (1994–1996), the Second Chechen War (1999–2009), and the 2008 South Ossetia War.