Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[Ketone Cop]

Sure you can

Thanks for that, Genero81. Especially quoting Castaneda, the first "new age" author I ever read.

So it's about surrender, as always. Be who you are and act accordingly, but let go of what happens afterwards.

I think the hardest thing about that is learning that you can care for others, but beyond that it's THEIR path, not yours. Maybe had I been a father this lifetime I would have already learned - or remembered - that lesson.

I've always known this. It is just that it is so hard to see so many choosing their own demise (seemingly!). But it is not my place to interfere, unless asked.

So I will just be who I AM in each and every moment, which is full of infinite possibility.

I surrender. Thank you.

 

[Ina]

Just a quick note that one of the main things I am learning is how my own sense of "self-importance" and supposed "true knowingness" is also a hindrance to my being and a separation from others. Putting it all in words for others to see is priceless for my understanding. But I also can't be something I am NOT. I don't know how to reconcile this at this time. I feel a need to ACT, but have no idea how to do so in a truly STO way, other than just making myself available to others if they are willing to listen. Standing by silently is HARD. SO hard...

Perhaps it would help the thought that this whole 'controlled demolition' of the human made space in which we live is intentional and somewhat forced or imposed in the ugliest manner, and not natural. Life is natural and life will always find a way. Humans are part of Life. 'Trust the Force."

 

[A Jay]

So, I don't think I can bring myself to do any more meetings with them via Zoom. Even just doing it to check in with them to say "hi" and sending love seems hollow to me, because the very medium they are using facilitates an underlying great LIE. And I can't bring myself to lie again. But I also can't use that time to introduce what I think because it's not my forum, and they don't want to hear it.

This is truly a "separation of worlds". But I have learned, of myself, that I just can't take this BS any more. I can't make myself wear a mask, unless I take it so far beyond the pale that I make a POINT while doing so (e.g. wearing that WWII gas mask). But even that leaves me open to mockery and chastisement. Yet I can't do otherwise!

It's as if I feel a VERY strong internal need to rebel, visibly, just HOPING someone else "gets it". I see now that doing so won't serve others, but make me a pariah. However, I have this question for the forum:

Is it important to live WHO YOU ARE, and stay true to the TRUTH you have EARNED, even if doing so causes everyone else around you to ignore and even despise you? Because I can do no less, and I am SICK of doing NOTHING. I have a very hard time just "going along to get along." Doing so will just hasten the process of destruction, in my view.

I think I may now have an inkling of how certain apostles and philosophers felt while trying to spread their knowledge...

I understand where you're coming from.

I found out that my workplace is going to be opening back up in a couple of weeks, and my boss told us to be prepared to wear masks and lord knows what else as part of this 'new normal' nonsense. After reading it my mind was instantly trying to think ways of fighting the system, but realistically there's not much, if anything, I can do to rebel at work because I work at a casino and they're very strict about enforcing rules and policies. At the same time, I don't want to go around proclaiming 'the end is nigh' because then I'm labeled a crazy person and I'll ruin what potential chances I have of planting seeds in the future.

So what then is the STO way of being in this situation?

Well, if the majority of people want to go along with this stuff and want to believe the lies, then who are we to deny them the very painful lessons they are asking for? If what is being asked of me is that I sacrifice my self-importance and play along with this whole charade until enough people get sick of it, then that is what I will do. It's by no means easy, but I think this is part of what the C's meant when they said that living through these times would be ecstasy.

That doesn't mean I can't voice my dissenting opinion when and where it's appropriate, but I know that it must be done strategically or else it will be for nothing but making myself feel better. Which is, of course, of service to no one but myself.

 

[sid]

@Ketone Cop , @genero81 has responded well to your line of enquiry. You have joined the forum recently though have followed the material for a while from your introductory post. Well, you see, now you are starting to see the benefits of a forum and networking. You are beginning to realise the true nature of work and why it's not for everyone even though everyone could potentially benefit from it if they were to discover it from their own efforts.

It's as if I feel a VERY strong internal need to rebel, visibly, just HOPING someone else "gets it". I see now that doing so won't serve others, but make me a pariah.

That's internal consideration and you have correctly deduced that its not serving others. Just stay on this line of thought. Anytime you feel that you can somehow influence others to see the light, you would be acting out of your own internal consideration. And don't be discouraged as most of us have these moments before we bring ourselves right back on track.

Just a quick note that one of the main things I am learning is how my own sense of "self-importance" and supposed "true knowingness" is also a hindrance to my being and a separation from others. Putting it all in words for others to see is priceless for my understanding. But I also can't be something I am NOT. I don't know how to reconcile this at this time. I feel a need to ACT, but have no idea how to do so in a truly STO way, other than just making myself available to others if they are willing to listen. Standing by silently is HARD. SO hard...

You need not try to reconcile anything here. What you are experiencing is an inner struggle where your real 'I' is trying to fight off the "Inner Predator Mind". This is natural and part of the awakening process - the predator mind doesn't like to give up that easy. Just keep observing the process and don't let it bog you down. There is no set way defined which one can follow in order to "act in a truly STO way" since our actions are often driven by choices presented in any given situation. And these situations differ for each individual. What you need to focus on is to stay on the path of learning and increasing your knowledge which leads to growth of your real 'I' and strengthening of will power. Its time to double down on your own learning and worry less about others.

 

[Ketone Cop]

I understand where you're coming from.

I found out that my workplace is going to be opening back up in a couple of weeks, and my boss told us to be prepared to wear masks and lord knows what else as part of this 'new normal' nonsense. After reading it my mind was instantly trying to think ways of fighting the system, but realistically there's not much, if anything, I can do to rebel at work because I work at a casino and they're very strict about enforcing rules and policies. At the same time, I don't want to go around proclaiming 'the end is nigh' because then I'm labeled a crazy person and I'll ruin what potential chances I have of planting seeds in the future.

So what then is the STO way of being in this situation?

Well, if the majority of people want to go along with this stuff and want to believe the lies, then who are we to deny them the very painful lessons they are asking for? If what is being asked of me is that I sacrifice my self-importance and play along with this whole charade until enough people get sick of it, then that is what I will do. It's by no means easy, but I think this is part of what the C's meant when they said that living through these times would be ecstasy.

That doesn't mean I can't voice my dissenting opinion when and where it's appropriate, but I know that it must be done strategically or else it will be for nothing but making myself feel better. Which is, of course, of service to no one but myself.

Yes, thank you, A Jay. As Genero81 pointed out to me (at least, I *hope* I got his point right!), it's about surrendering and not *forcing care* upon others who don't want your input. I just wish I had been able to learn these lessons in less demanding times, but I guess that's part of the ecstasy, yes?! I always was one to do my studying for tests at the last possible moment!!

 

[jhonny]

Is it important to live WHO YOU ARE, and stay true to the TRUTH you have EARNED, even if doing so causes everyone else around you to ignore and even despise you? Because I can do no less, and I am SICK of doing NOTHING. I have a very hard time just "going along to get along." Doing so will just hasten the process of destruction, in my view.

I understand that feeling because I have felt it many times myself, not just in this Corona issue, but in other situations related to living in a world of lies. Thing is, we have chosen to do The Work, and that implies going along and getting along with all difficulties when you are trying to get to know how to serve others, this means to respect free will. In doing that we feel sentiments like anger and disappointment. But in mastering this sentiments, and respecting free will is when we aquire knowledge and get to konw how to help each other.

I don't think you do nothing, It's just the opposite. You are doing your best sharing here and learning from others, because in the future people will come to you looking for answers and that's when you are going to realize how much you are doing

 

[Ketone Cop]

@Ketone Cop , @genero81 has responded well to your line of enquiry. You have joined the forum recently though have followed the material for a while from your introductory post. Well, you see, now you are starting to see the benefits of a forum and networking. You are beginning to realise the true nature of work and why it's not for everyone even though everyone could potentially benefit from it if they were to discover it from their own efforts.

That's internal consideration and you have correctly deduced that its not serving others. Just stay on this line of thought. Anytime you feel that you can somehow influence others to see the light, you would be acting out of your own internal consideration. And don't be discouraged as most of us have these moments before we bring ourselves right back on track.


You need not try to reconcile anything here. What you are experiencing is an inner struggle where your real 'I' is trying to fight off the "Inner Predator Mind". This is natural and part of the awakening process - the predator mind doesn't like to give up that easy. Just keep observing the process and don't let it bog you down. There is no set way defined which one can follow in order to "act in a truly STO way" since our actions are often driven by choices presented in any given situation. And these situations differ for each individual. What you need to focus on is to stay on the path of learning and increasing your knowledge which leads to growth of your real 'I' and strengthening of will power. Its time to double down on your own learning and worry less about others.

Thanks again Sid, and for everyone reacting to what I have posted here. I have to admit, though I've followed this forum for about ten years now, one of the reasons I didn't join before was because I *feared* the process of learning that I am undergoing now. And I do have some guilt about doing so on THIS particular thread and bogging it down even more. But there may be others experiencing some of the same things who are not currently expressing themselves, and it might help them seeing me going through my process. I surrender to the process.

And ironically? Had I been here ten years ago, I would not have had the strength to do this now. I HAD to spend years on the forums of Zero Hedge and dealing with the pettiest of tyrants there, learning to hone my posts to impeccability and NOT CARING WHAT THEY THOUGHT because I was TRUE to who I AM. I just need to remember this...while letting go of self-importance. Still seeing that in my posts, and acknowledging it.

 

[SummerLite]

More dirt on Fauci...(aka, the little rat). His Remdesivir study is a shame according to Del Bigtree. Two previous trials where shown the drug to be ineffective for covid. The placebo group in his trial received a concoction of toxic chemicals instead of the standard saline solution. Plus he repeatedly changes the format of the study in the hope of getting the results he wants throwing objective results out the window. Del speculates on the plan for Remdesivir by Gates and Fauci whose main objective is the vaccine of course. Meanwhile the real cure hydroxychloriquine is buried. Psycho's in high places.

BREAKING: REMDESIVIR STUDY “A SHAM” - The HighWire

The HighWire does a deep dive into Anthony Fauci’s NIH-Funded study of Remdesivir, the new Covid treatment darling approved by the FDA today, and uncovered some shocking discoveries.

thehighwire.com

 

[luc]

I'm wondering how this crap can really be legal. They want to keep masks and distancing, but based on what do they want to enforce that long-term? I don't understand the details, but I think this is only possible under the 'state of emergency' or martial law or whatever the hell this thing actually is. So if they keep telling people to do all this stupid shit but can't actually fine me, then I don't really care. I'll just ignore the 'recommendations'. Other people suffocating themselves to death due to authoritarian stupidity isn't really my problem.

Does anyone have a good understanding of the legality of these measures in connection to basic human rights and the constitution, which should be pretty similar in all of Europe and America?

Well, remember that Hitler came to power by strictly legal means. It was all done by laws being passed in parliament, legal governmental decrees etc. This means that our constitutions don't protect us if we don't understand them anymore, and lose our ability to defend the various clauses. It's not enough to say "but in our constitution, it says God granted us these rights!" if nobody believes in God. It's not enough to say "but our constitution grants us human dignity" if people have no clue what this means, and mistakenly believe that you can't have dignity if you are dead. (Our constitutional court once ruled that even those physically passed away still have human dignity - but who in today's world understands such a concept?)

And what can you do in a "democracy" if the majority of people actually want these measures?

However, at least in Germany, the constitution was specifically written to make it near impossible for a new Hitler to rise, so I think they will have a hard time with some of these measures. The constitutional court already ruled that you can still have demonstrations, lockdown or not. I suspect that some of those judges are well-versed in our legal tradition and the Kantian approach to human rights that they will rule against some, or even many, of the measures. But still, judges are humans, and are subject to propaganda as well. So let's see.

As it stands right now, I think most of the measures are unconstitutional at least here in Germany. But it might be different in the common law countries, you would have to look at the various verdicts and precedents. Also, I think the "older" constitutions are weaker in this situation, because their authors lived in a different world where people still believed in the primacy of values over death, and even the immortality of the soul. They couldn't imagine that the "right to safety" could be used to erect a tyranny. They used different justifications for their tyrannies such as religious or moralistic arguments. They also were trying to solve different historical problems than defending themselves against a "tyranny in the name of the Volk's safety".

All in all, I believe we will see some spectacular legal battles. Not only on the constitutional level, but also about public law, such as shop owners suing governmental agencies, other companies and the like. I sure hope that there will be court cases where some of the idiotic "official doctors" will have to defend their Dunning-Kruger idiocy and provide proof that their decisions were sound. Wait and see!

 

[Nachtweide]

Mask not obligation in Germany
We have patients with a certificate from the doctor that they are exempt from the obligation to wear a mask. Now I informed a patient that this certificate exists and she should contact the family doctor. Without a certificate, she came to me and said that there is no certificate because there is no mask obligation. I contacted the practice and spoke to an extremely aggressive helper who probably thought she was the doctor. I applied for the mask for the patient and she explained that this document could not be issued because the practice had no information from the health insurance company. She talks to the doctor. Yesterday morning the doctor called me and said in a friendly tone that the certificate was of course written. At the same time, she enlightened me. There is no mask obligation in Germany, so you don't need a certificate. In business, you should say that you can't wear a mask because of illness. But every business has changed the right of house and the mask requirement is now house right. She gave me the hint that the patient is now being attacked by the other customers. I said that this is exactly why this certificate is necessary. In the end, she informed me that, in her opinion, all risk patients should stay at home anyway, so that would be the end of the disussion. I have answered whether she can actually support this statement. According to the RKI, 90% of all German risk patients for corona are overweight, diabetes, hypertension, old age. Should we then lock them up in the basement for the next 100 years? Whether it would be expedient to push such a thought of mass isolation further or to allow people to maintain their freedom. She didn't answer me anymore and wished me a good day. The patient was overjoyed - goal achieved.

Mask failure studie from me

Now it was the first time i was shopping in a shopping center. Dead silence. It felt so wrong. Everywhere signs, stickers for aisle direction, changed entrances. I thought I was in a completely wrong world. This time I did the mask test - not a mask. In the first shop, I announced that I was ill. After a lengthy discussion, I say: Can you actually allow yourself with this small number of customers to reject customers who never come back - even without mask time? I was allowed into the shop.
In the next shop a sentry disinfected me, examined me and I swore to myself: If he takes the thermometer out, then I have him on the collar.
I announced that I am ill and cannot wear a mask. A discussion now began that could not be beaten in terms of stupidity. All disinfection masters and business controllers definitely come from the area of minimum intelligence. Good - I had to go in because I absolutely needed something. I informed him that I was following his orders, that there was no mask requirement and that he was hereby taking responsibility for my health. I bought my items in the store and delivered a theater performance in line at the cash register. There was an incredible coughing fit on my part. I gasped. Within 1 second everyone had fled in different directions. The disinfectant man ran to me and wanted to pull the mask away from my face. I defended them and said: No, take your hands off my mask. I have her because of Corona. And go away - 1.50m - 1.50m ... Completely helpless and on the verge of madness you stood around me.

I defended my mask and my 1.50m distance. Then the manager came, took me by the arm and led me out of the shop. I had to give him the money in front of the shop and he brought me my goods.
I hope that maybe this business has learned something. I don't know if I can ever go there again.

Registry office
The official madness has been shown in the planning of our wedding over the past few weeks. The authorities actually drove my daughter-in-law insane and I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't experienced it.
30 people were allowed to enter the registry office in front of Corona. After the ban, the wedding was canceled. 1 week later: The wedding takes place with 5 people - newlyweds, groomsmen and registrars. 3 weeks later: A new registry office and now 6 people: newlyweds - parents - without groomsmen. Since my youngest son has a very special, close connection with his brother, I decided he go and i not go. It would have broken my heart, but this day had a special meaning for my sons. On Monday of this week a new message: Different registry office - same cast. Tuesday's new rule: newlyweds - groomsmen - without parents with a mask or newlyweds alone without a mask. On Wednesday: new rule: new registry office - newlyweds - parents with new partners - groomsmen - grandparents - with mask. New rule on Thursday: newlyweds - groomsmen - parents without partners - no grandparents with masks

 

[luc]

Speaking of legal abuse, someone here already mentioned a new law being drafted here in Germany, that basically says you need to carry a document where your "immune status" is indicated, and that otherwise you will be excluded from certain things. I.e. the easing of the measures won't apply to you!

You can prove your immune status either by having a doctor "confirm it according to current medical consensus" (the name of the doctor needs to be written on the document), or - surprise surprise - by being vaccinated. In practical terms this means you need to carry proof of your vax status against Covid (and other viruses - the law doesn't specify the virus) if you want to take part in social and professional life.

I don't think this will stand a chance before the constitutional court (there are already some lawyers who started fighting against all this), but who knows in these days of mass hysteria?

 

[JEEP]

Just want to say that the content of some of the posts is causing me to laugh out loud repeatedly (MI - yes you!) And this was a winner:

if you're a coronaphobic

OMG - luv it!
Ok - back to being serious:

Does anyone have a good understanding of the legality of these measures in connection to basic human rights and the constitution, which should be pretty similar in all of Europe and America?

"I hope it's discovered soon that this is unconstitutional and infringes on basic freedoms."
"I want to see when we will stop just complaining in comments and finally do something about it."

I feel a need to ACT, but have no idea how to do so in a truly STO way, other than just making myself available to others if they are willing to listen. Standing by silently is HARD. SO hard...

I have to think there must be some kind of legal action (class action?) that can be initiated to let the elected and now unelected purveyors of health rules be sued for their actions that are unconstitutional, illegal, in contradiction of actual health remedies, and engendering unparalleled emotional, medical, and economic damage upon the public without their informed consent.

I was impressed with the legal tactics that the Smart meter movement has been pursuing with continuing good results. They're going after the little as well as the big fish who realize that they can be held financially liable for their imposed actions and consequently, resign from their official posts. As noted in the last session:

(L) Remember what Łobaczewski wrote about the fear that psychopaths have about losing their positions because they're not able to go to work and get a job or do anything other than what they do? They're TERRIFIED of that. For them it's an existential problem.

(Pierre) It's worse than death for them.

InPower Episode #0: Trailer (2017)
Touches on vaccinations and 5G. A how-to primer. This vid gave me chills.

InPower Movement: Early results (Episode #1 clip)
We have uncovered and refined a revolutionary new process: enforcing the individual commercial liability of corporate executives and government representatives who are causing egregious harm. We are on a mission to make this Liability Action available and easy for everyone. The first focus is solving the smart meter problem. This clip is from the forthcoming InPower Docu-Series: Episode #1.

He also points out that law enforcement has no legal authority to infringe on citizens’ Constitutional Rights by preventing lawful freedom of speech, assemble, religion and overall liberties. Lastly, he issues a stark warning to government and law enforcement – that if they continue to abuse the public in this way, it could initiate a dangerous public uprising."

John F. Kennedy — "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John Lennon — “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they've got you violent, then they know how to handle you."

Mahatma Gandhi — "In a gentle way, you can shake the world."

Jesus — ". . . be wise as serpents and gentle as doves."

Can't find the exact quote but, "the war is through you" i.e. us as stated by the Cs?

At this final stage that we are now, should we stand up to things that we don't agree with, jeopardizing ourselves and our love ones well-being, or should just give up fighting for this world and concentrate on this "internal light" only? In other words: does it make sense to risk ...(put here whatever horrible you can think about) just for the sake of rebellion in a world that is over anyway? Or should we rather tune into and maintain frequency of a pendulum that lights our light, making choices that are less painful in this last drama of our realm?

A: The second option is the better one. But one can continue to share truth in a careful way.

I don't think that rules out mounting a legal action in whatever way makes sense? I'm seeing some additional posts are touching on the legal aspects of this plandemic and what recourse is available. Time to hone in on this?

Regarding Remdesivir - I recently read either here or Sott or somewhere that a total of 48% had bad side effects from this drug.

 

[loreta]

I felt something similar for the last few days - less anger, more resilience, more ability to take the "bird's eye view", more humour about this madness... On the other hand, there is also great pain, but it's not so much anger or rebellious thoughts, but pain of saying good-bye - good-bye to the old world, the old life, to people I thought were different...

Yes Luc, me too. I feel everything I knew is going, at the same time I am grateful for all what I lived, this world that is not there anymore. Pain, sadness... and gratefulness.

I lived with a man that is Asperger, he does not care of what is happening, in fact he is aware of this non-sense but he does not feel sadness or maybe he is incapable of feeling or expressing the feeling so at home I am alone and cant talk about all of this.

But like you the clarity of what is happening gives ways to accept but wow, how difficult sometimes. About concerts and music, even during war in some countries during war people were able to go to listen to music, it was a solace for them. Even that is prohibited for us, now. How devilish!

Here in my island even go to the beach is prohibited. And people are still clapping every night. To live surrounded by imbeciles is very hard. But hopefully I can read good books that help me for now and make me work my grey cells.

At the same time when I go outside with dogs I see that people do not care about distanciation, they walk together as nothing, the laugh, they talk. How strange.

 

[Ketone Cop]

"Laura said:
At this final stage that we are now, should we stand up to things that we don't agree with, jeopardizing ourselves and our love ones well-being, or should just give up fighting for this world and concentrate on this "internal light" only? In other words: does it make sense to risk ...(put here whatever horrible you can think about) just for the sake of rebellion in a world that is over anyway? Or should we rather tune into and maintain frequency of a pendulum that lights our light, making choices that are less painful in this last drama of our realm?

A: The second option is the better one. But one can continue to share truth in a careful way."

Thanks Jeep for posting that! It is the same question I've just asked, and it turns out it's already been answered. I guess the answers really are all already here, one just needs to tune themselves properly to receive them. Sorry again for the noise. And for those who shared their thoughts and experiences that will help going forward.

 

[Jones]

I'm wondering how this crap can really be legal. They want to keep masks and distancing, but based on what do they want to enforce that long-term? I don't understand the details, but I think this is only possible under the 'state of emergency' or martial law or whatever the hell this thing actually is. So if they keep telling people to do all this stupid shit but can't actually fine me, then I don't really care. I'll just ignore the 'recommendations'. Other people suffocating themselves to death due to authoritarian stupidity isn't really my problem.

Does anyone have a good understanding of the legality of these measures in connection to basic human rights and the constitution, which should be pretty similar in all of Europe and America?

It can be implemented under a state of emergency or martial law but there's more to it that addresses a long history of law removing the rights of the people.

Here's a trick they use. In policy, statute and act, they don't use either the word 'human' or 'men/women' - those terms indicate life.

In policy, act and statute they almost always use the word 'person/s' , and person doesn't have to be a living being - it can be a legal fiction. In law, the definition of 'person' is quite long and convoluted. Additionally, law operates on presumptions and consent. Presumptions stand unless they can be rebutted and consent can be legally withdrawn if you can rebut the presumption of 'personhood' or show that the agreement or contract did not fill the legal elements of a contract. If you don't challenge the presumption then the legal maxim 'Qui tacet consentit' or 'Silence gives consent' is in operation.

Blacks Law 4th Edition:

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the du- ties which it imposes. People v. R. Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N.E. 873.
The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656.

Term may include artificial beings, as corpora- tions, 1 Bla.Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242; quasi-corpora- tions, Sedgw. Stat. & Const. L. 372; L. R. 5 App. Cas. 857; territorial corporations, Seymour v. School District, 53 Conn. 507, 3 A. 552; and for- eign corporations, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all per- sons the equal protection of the laws, Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 17 S.Ct. 255, 165 U.S. 150, 41 L.Ed. 666; concerning claims arising from Indian depredations, U. S. v. Transp. Co., 17 S.Ct. 206, 164 U.S. 686, 41 L.Ed. 599; relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People v. Mc- Lean, 80 N.Y. 254; to attachments, Bray v. Wal- lingford, 20 Conn. 416; usurious contracts, Phil- adelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; ap- plying to limitation of actions, Olcott v. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 210, 75 Am.Dec. 393; North Mo. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am.Dec. 183; and concern- ing the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is a liv- ing person, La Farge v. Ins. Co., 22 N.Y. 352. A. corporation is also a person under a penal stat- ute; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 6 L.Ed. 502. Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment; Cov- ington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 17 S.Ct. 198, 164 U.S. 578, 41 L.Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N.Y. 311, 44 Am.Rep. 380; U. S. v. Supply Co., 30 S.Ct. 15, 215 U.S. 50, 54 L.Ed. 87; contra, Central P. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 35. But a corporation of another state is not a "per- son" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state, Fire Ass'n of Phila. v. New York, 7 S.Ct. 108, 119 U.S. 110, 30 L.Ed. 342; and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 8 S.Ct. 737, 125 U.S. 181, 189, 31 L.Ed. 650.
It may include partnerships. In re Julian, D. C.Pa., 22 F.Supp. 97, 99. Also firms. State ex rel. Joseph R. Peebles Sons Co. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 127 Ohio St. 513, 189 N.E. 447, 448.

"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons in- clude a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853.

It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam., Ill., 178; Ap- peal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337 ; 4 A. 149 ; but as a rule corpora- tions will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132.

A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192, but contra within the meaning of a statute, providing a penalty for 'the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any "person" be de- frauded, Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peaceful possession against all and every person or persons; Giddings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 P. 8. An Indian is a person, U. S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed.Cas.No.14,891; and a slave was so considered, in so far, as to be capable of committing a riot .in conjunction with white men, State v. Thackam, 1 Bay, S.C., 358. The estate of a decedent is a person, Bill- ings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7 N.E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; and where the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such person, Brewer v. Crosby, 11 Gray, Mass., 29; but where the statute provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insuffi- cient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat, [1896] 2 Q.B. 109; a dog will not be included in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large, Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283, 22 Am.Rep. 529.

Where the statute prohibited any person from pursuing his usual vocation on the Lord's Day, it was held to apply to a judge holding court. Bass v. Irvin, 49 Ga. 436.

A child en ventre sa mere is not a person. Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 52 Am.Rep. 242; but an in- fant is so considered; Madden v. Springfield, 131 Mass. 441.

In the United States bankrupty act of 1898, it is provided that the word "persons" shall include corporations, except where otherwise specified, and officers, partnerships, and women, and, when used with reference to the commission of acts which are therein forbidden, shall include persons who are participants in the forbidden acts, and the agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations. 11 U.S.C.A. § 1.

Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correla- tive duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law. •• *

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural per- son. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL

So by agreeing to an identity that determines that you are a 'person' you can be treated as though you are a corporate entity/agent and subject to administrative laws, policies, statutes and acts based on contracts and agreements through international private law that inherently remove your human, constitutional and common law rights - unless you can rebut the presumption with proof or show that the contract or agreement did not fulfil the legal elements of a contract.

So back to the question - legal? Yes. Dirty trick? Also yes.

Having said all of the above, here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you read it, pay particular attention to the articles where they use the word 'person' and where they alternatively use 'men/women' or 'everyone' because in that they are making distinctions depending on what each article is addressing and they are essentially referring to different jurisdictions or area's of law by using those different terms.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

The fundamental basis of common law that constitutions were written to limit the powers of governments from infringing is that everyone has the right to own property for their own subsistence and is free to do what ever they like so long as they do not harm another or their property - or free will and external consideration.