Eldon Warman's Definition of "Person" Unmasked

In Usenet Message-ID:
<ZgeR6.6104$rn5.294733@www.newsranger.com>, Eldon Warman states that "My detax program is ... from legal definitions obrtained [sic] from judicially accepted law dictionaries." Let's examine this assertion as it applies to the word "person".

Warman's detax program is based on the claim that human beings are not persons for purposes of law. Thus, any definition of "person" as a human being, whether found in "judicially accepted law dictionaries" or in common English dictionaries to which most of us have easy access, must be discredited by Warman if his detax program is to be sustained.

In Lesson #1 of his detax program, Warman attempts to discredit dictionary definitions of "person" by stating, "In researching the definition of 'person' is [sic] a dictionary, one finds (usually #1 definition) the vague term 'human being'. However, that term is found in no law dictionary." This is factually false.

Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) defines "person" as:

1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.

There it is: The term "human being" found in a law dictionary, and specifically found as a meaning of the word "person", just as said term is found as a meaning of the word "person" in common English dictionaries. For example, Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Ed.) (1988) defines "person" as:

1. a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.

There are three possible explainations for this factual falsehood: (1) Warman did not research the definition of "person" used in "judicially accepted law dictionaries" before writing the quoted section of Lesson #1, and doesn't know what he's talking about; (2) he knows how law dictionaries define "person" and is trying to deceive you; or (3) his writing is sloppy, and he meant to say that the term "human being" is not *defined* in law dictionaries.

Giving Warman the benefit of the doubt, consider the third possible explaination, assuming that it is the vaild one:

While it is true that "judicially acceptable law dictionaries" such as Black's do not contain a definition of the term "human being", that does not mean that said phrase is meaningless in a legal sense.

The general rule of statutory interpretation is that words and sentences must be construed in their ordinary meaning or common or popular sense, unless the context requires some special or particular meaning to be given to them. Using this rule, in the absence of a definition of "human being" in "judicially accepted law dictionaries", the definition found in common or popular English dictionaries applies.

Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Ed.) (1988) defines "human" as:

n. a person

Webster's also defines "being" as:

3. one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so, as in "a human being"

Thus, you see that "human being" refers to a living human. You and I are human beings and, as such, we are also persons.

You can now see that it is ridiculous to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word or phrase used in a definition found in a law dictionary, such as "human being", simply because that word or phrase is not itself defined in a law dictionary.

Warman's claim that one cannot know the meaning of the phrase "human being" as used in a law dictionary because it is not itself defined in a law dictionary is a red herring, intended to distract you from the fact that words and phrases as defined in common or popular English dictionaries have meaning in a legal context. In the instant case, the phrase "human being" clearly has the identical meaning in a legal context as it has in a common or popular context.

Now you will see why it is so important to Warman that he discredit the definition of "person" "obrtained [sic] from judicially accepted law dictionaries" and from common or popular English dictionaries.

In Lesson #1, Warman alleges that a consequence of filing an income tax return is that "Your status is supposedly changed from a living man into a 'person' - a legal fiction, a corporate entity." This ad hoc definition of "person" is the basis of Warman's detax program. Only if you accept his ad hoc definition of "person" to the exclusion of all others is his detax program sustainable.

As you have seen from the examination of the definitions of "person", "human", and "being" found in "judicially accepted law dictionaries" and in common or popular English dictionaries, the definition of "person" encompasses both a human being and a corporate entity. Black's contains a separate specific definition for each of these conditions.

Black's defines "artificial person" as:

An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.

Black's defines "natural person" as:

A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.

Warman's ad hoc definition of "person" corresponds in a general sense to Black's definition of "artificial person". However, Warman claims that this is the only correct legal definition of "person", which, as you have seen, is factually false. He specifically rejects the definition of "person" as a human being, which corresponds to Black's definition of "natural person".

It is now clear that Warman's statement in Message-ID: <ZgeR6.6104$rn5.294733@www.newsranger.com> regarding the use in his detax program of "legal definitions obrtained [sic] from judicially accepted law dictionaries" is factually false. It is also clear that Warman's claim that his ad hoc definition of "person" found in Lesson #1 of his detax program is the only legally correct definition of that word is factually false.

In light of these factual falsehoods, the only way Warman's detax program can be sustained is if you can somehow manage to convince yourself that the definition of "person" found in every single English law dictionary in the world and every single common or popular English dictionary in the world is inaccurate, and that Eldon Warman is the only person in the history of the world to have figured out what the word "person" really means. I, however, believe that if you examine the evidence, you will find that the definitions of "person" found in both "judicially accepted law dictionaries" and common or popular English dictionaries are indeed accurate, that it is Warman's ad hoc definition of "person" that is false, and that therefore his detax program cannot be sustained.

You might also want to read the transcript of COURT FILE NO.: 00-CV-14232, in which Justice Sedgewick of the Ontario Superior Court Of Justice thoroughly unmasks Warman's ad hoc definition of "person" from a strictly legal point of view. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Justice Sedgewick.