“Persons” are “animals”??
[courtesy Google Images]
I’ve also presented inferential evidence that the word “consumer” may signify an “animal”.
So, I’m delighted to have received the following email which presents evidence that even the word “person” signifies an “animal”–at least in Wisconsin. But I’ll bet that, as more people research the statutes in their own state, they’ll find that “person” = “animal” in other states, probably most states, maybe all states.
If it turns out to be true that the word “person” usually signifies an “animal” in state or federal law, it will be even more evidence that a spiritual war is being waged by gov-co against the American people.
Here’s the email:
Dear Alfred,
I re-listened to you on angela’s talkshoe call from last April 11th….about “man and other animals“…..so I looked up Wisconsin Statutes and found this: Wis. Stats. Chapter 94 Plant Industry 94.67 (12) “Environment” includes water, air, land and all plants and persons and other animals living in or on the water, air or land and the interrelationships which exist among them. Wis. Stats. Chapter 941 Crimes – Public Health & Safety 941.327 ….in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in persons or other animals; or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals;…. 1919 Wis. Stats. – page 1312 The term “insecticide” as used in sections 1494-100 to 1494-10w, inclusive, shall include any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects which may infest vegetation, man or other animals, or households, or be present in any environment whatsoever. In the 1919 statutes, they still used the term “man” but it’s completely disappeared from the current statutes…..with only “person” used…I am currently under three criminal counts of “simulating legal process” for which the DA has offered a ‘deferred’ something….he did not yet say that I will be required to plea, but I’m sure that’s part of it (had 1-1/2 hour pre-trial meeting with him– he’s a talker and he’s running for judge). When the use of “person” in statutes was raised…he responded that “person” is just gender-neutral….implying it can mean man or woman.I would like to impugn the whole Wis Stats system due to the two above statements equating animals and man.We do not eat men/woman. . . last I checked. I have a book on cannibalism that took place on a ship lost at sea and how the case was handled. . . very serious matter.I’d like to bring “persons and other animals” in as an admission. . . .I read through your suit on your web site. . . .Has any one used “man or other animals” in any recent cases?Thank you. . . .JudyHi Judy,Thanks very much for your research.I know that a few people have tried to use that line of defense, but I don’t know of anyone besides myself who’s used that line of defense successfully.But that’s not necessarily a surprise. The “man or other animals” issue is so explosive that if it’s raised early enough in a confrontation with the “authorities,” they may just drop the case rather than risk having the issue go before a jury and/or force government to defend defining people as “animals”. Thus, there may be other victories, but they won’t be recorded in case law if the case is simply dropped rather than prosecuted.In the end, “man or other animals” or “persons or other animals” isn’t a “legal” defense, so much as a “political” defense. It’s a little like having photos of the prosecutor having sex with a goat. Not wanting those photos to be released in court to the body politic, the prosecutor may simply dismiss a case. Similarly, not wanting the public to see evidence of the government’s determination to treat us all like right-less “animals,” if you raise the “man or other animals” or “person or other animals” defense, the case may simply disappear.But if your case doesn’t disappear and you have to go to court, you’d better be able to clearly explain the “person or other animals” grammar, meaning and its spiritual significance in terms that the jury can understand. If you can do that, I’m convinced you can win.In your own case, the prosecutor has already tried to deceive you by claiming “person” is just a gender-neutral term. You don’t necessarily have to fight him on that issue. Just ask him to stipulate in writing or on the record that “person” includes a man or woman made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and endowed by his/her Creator with certain unalienable Rights as per the “Declaration of Independence”.If he’s willing to make that stipulation, you should have all the rights you ever dreamed of and his prosecution will probably fail.On the other hand, if the prosecutor refuses to stipulate that you’re a woman made in God’s image, etc., then you should hammer him hard with a freedom of religion defense knowing that he can’t withstand that line of defense–if you are a strong advocate.Thanks again for your important research. Those who can find similar evidence in their state statutes and state codes that “persons” are presumed to be “animals” will be enormously strengthened if they care to resist government oppression.Al