Persona non grata
# 3 ~ no diplomatic immunity at question here
Having a Bath, with Bubbles. It was in the early ‘70’s at our lake cottage at Burnstick Lake in the foothills of Alberta. The lake had been so named as the lake bottom was full of standing charred trees, under the water. The valley, which at some time in history, had recently burned and was then blocked or dammed at one end causing it to fill with water and form a lake where previously there had been forrest. Canoeing across the water looking down at the blackened limbs reaching up to the surface is my memory of that lake, and also, my “bath with bubbles”. It is this occurrence that forms my first recollection of playing a part, a role, in a production. During stays at the cottage (in Alberta we call them cabins) my sister and I together with our cousins would put on skits, plays, sing songs, etc. in performance for the rest of the family. It just occurs to me now that other members of the extended family also participated in telling jokes or what have you (the cousins and their family were far more exuberant and playful than my own, probably due to them being half Swedish ;-). We set up a small stage set where my sister pretended to act as an attendant or receptionist of a spa, I, “acting” as a grown handsome business man in a suit, arrive at the front desk where I am asked what can be done for me. I say, in character, dropping my voice as low as my six year old voice box would reach, “I’m here to have a bath — with bubbles”. My cousin Tim repeats the same process in a slightly different accent and style. And then, a dolled up heavily make up’d swanky walking, cousin Lori saunters in. When asked what she is here for, by the receptionist, she leans forward, turns to the audience and in her best velvety breathy voice declares, “I’m Bubbles”. All parents, brothers, sisters, even staunchy Grandma Martha burst into applause and laughter, even whilst most, if not all, knew the punch line far in advance. ‘Handsome Businessman in suit’, my first role on stage.
One takes on a persona to play a role. They act as ‘Handsome Businessman in suit’ even though I was only six years old, I took on the persona, assumed a character, and put on a “false face”, a mask of sorts. Cynthia and I many years ago attended a play when we were in Calgary to celebrate our wedding anniversary at the Pumphouse Theatre. It was “The Taming of The Shrew” and the production was done in the style of the early Greek theatre, where the costumes were very sparse and plain, as was the set, but each character wore a mask that was adorned as a caricature. This mask in the old Greek and Latin was the “Persona”, the thing that One put on, to “act as” the character. A mask, rests between your self (true face), and the outside world. As does the “Registered Corporate Name”. It is a role that you vitalize with your energy in the exact same way as the mask becomes enlivened by your speaking through the sound hole, “sonum”, and using your voice/spirit to bring the dead fiction, mask/NAME, to life.
This begs the question, can One take off the mask? Well of course you can! Once one learns to act as and for One’s-self, the man/woman, recognizing the persona/mask, comprehending where the distinctions lie in determining who you are, and who you are acting as, and when and how. You’re gonna have to read that sentence a few times. We will go deeper into all of this in future. Performance is the strongest element in contract. It trumps your signature/autograph. They have set up a system by which One performs in agreement to the contract of: acting as, for, and surety for, the Registered Corporate NAME, in so many subtle ways, that it becomes very difficult to delineate where the line between true face and mask is.
Depending on the familiarity of the reader with things corporate, Birth Certificate, contract, etc. I recommend reading the posts from the beginning, as a body of work in total, starting with “Lurking is no longer an option”, as each subsequent post builds on the knowledge and methods expressed in the preceding posts.
In my post “The Art of BE - ing” I explained how the “Registered Corporate NAME” comes in to existence and who created it. In italics, directly below, please find an excerpt from a private agreement that I created and formed with the Prosecutor for the Province of Alberta in a recent issue that I was called to engage in.
“ . . .
As per Section 2 of THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA :
“every one, person and owner, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization”
6. It is agreed by you (Robynn, the Prosecutor, added for clarity) that you have knowledge and awareness that I, the man, Arlen-Paul: am not in that list. I am not “Her Majesty” and I am not “an organization”, and I do not volunteer nor agree to act as, or be surety for, either as those are persons of law I cannot be forced to submit to.
As per the ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory to and thus is upheld as Federal Law:
Article 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 18: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
. . .”
It was in this instant matter, this “required” court appearance, that all charges were withdrawn by the Prosecutor after I presented her with this offer and achieved agreement. The whole story of this engagement is beyond the scope of this post, perhaps another time. However, it does begin to illuminate the parties involved in such matters.
From “THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA”: “every one, person and owner, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization”
Number 1, “every one”:
Defined within this policy/statute/code, “every one”, include Her Majesty and an organization. There are many things to take apart in this one little line. This definition from Section 2, only applies to any matter that is taking place within the jurisdiction of Canada. One may think that they are within that jurisdiction but in fact, when sitting in a coffee shop in downtown Toronto, One may not be “in Canada”, more on that in later posts re: jurisdiction(s).
Number 2, “include”:
In legal jargon, when One comes upon this word, “include”, there is a very special meaning and significance given. In the above noted quote, “include” comes between a list of identities, and is followed by “Her Majesty and an organization”. What this means in this instance, legal jargon, policy corporate statute code is: ONLY, yes, ONLY!!!!, Her Majesty or an organization! Not any other: man, woman, beast (well, perhaps Her Majesty may qualify in that category), or any other descriptive term that One might associate with. Re-written in simple direct english the line would be written: every one, person and owner, and similar expressions, are ONLY either Her Majesty or an organization.
Number 3, “organization”:
Organization is a bit of a trick. I mentioned “language play” in my previous post. This is definitely one of those instances. Suffice to say that if One is stating, and standing on, that they are a man/women, with full knowledge of what that means, this standing cannot be converted to an organization (also more on this later, this is a slippery slope that One needs some crampons to achieve necessary traction). This is one place that the Authorities in the know can have Their way with you. One must specify that they are acting and appearing as a man only, and not as or for any other entity, which, it is always assumed that you are. If One answers to “you”, it is proof that One can be acting in multiple capacities. “You” is singular and plural. So who is/are you, or better said who are you acting/appearing as or for: the all caps NAME Corp which by your performance have attached yourself to, or the man (flesh, blood, spirit life force), or maybe both at the same time? You can also act as or for a title such as trustee, CEO, board member, etc. You can appear as any or all of the above at the same time. So which one is the Authority referencing by calling One “you”? It is my experience that, They are talking to whichever one brings One/you into Their jurisdiction, and if you answer, you’re in.
Number 4, “person”:
And now to the real matter at hand. Language play at its grandest! The big sleight of hand. Is one a person? Talk about a slippery slope, this one, “person”, requires the use and familiarity with not only crampons, but harnesses, ropes, carabiners, anchors, pitons,… really anything that helps one to avoid a fall. The fall is the result of failing to comprehend and overcome the wordplay. We are trained to accept the notion and expression that a people - is a person, a man - is a person, a woman - is a person, a human being - is a person, my wife - is a person, …. Both in legalese and in literal English, this is not possible. “Person”, persona (Greek), personare (Latin) is NOT any of these afore mentioned entities. One can only act as, or for, a person, at law or any other true definition of what a person is. Just because it is the “parlance of our times” to use words improperly, does not overcome the definition and meaning that can, and will, be used against you! As “include” is used VERY specifically in legalese, so is person, PERSON, Legal Person, and so on. In italics below is what I presented in my offer for agreement to the Prosecutor regarding “person”:
“ . . .
9. It is agreed by you that you have knowledge and awareness that the word person is derived from the Greek and Latin, persona, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face,” a social role or “The mask or appearance one presents to the world”. And that in Law, if the word person simply meant: any man or woman, then it would say so. If the Bible meant any man or woman when the word “person” was used, then it would say so.
10. It is agreed by you that you have knowledge and awareness that the 1611 King James Bible clearly defines “person” as a separate entity from a man, in Jude 1 verse 16: “… and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words,] having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” Man and woman nor men or women do not equal person(s), Biblically or at Law. And so it is my faith to separate myself from; acting in, or with, the identity of a person, and engaging in interactions with persons whenever possible.
Further to the ICCPR:
Article 3: … right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
11. It is agreed by you that you have knowledge and awareness that herein I exercise my freedom as a man to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” as set forth in this Covenant.
Article 16: Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
12. It is agreed by you that you have knowledge and awareness that herein I exercise my freedom of conscience and faith to reject and decline the offer of “the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law” in this instant matter and forever.
. . .”
That Article 16 is a DOOOOZZIIEEEE!!!
The United Nations, and whatever Federal Government has signed on to the ICCPR gives every such an One, the “right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
NO - THANK - YOU - !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once you agree to, and accept, your right to recognition as a “person”, it’s GAME OVER!
If you do not expressly reject the offer, then They have gained tacit acceptance to Their offer to provide One with that right. It is now assumed, unless rebutted, that you are to be recognized as a person. In every exchange and instance.
Persona non grata! The use of this phrase in the higher echelons of world politics and governance, means; to reject a diplomat. In plain english, (persona) this person (non) is not, or is no longer (grata) pleasing, acceptable, or welcome. Should the diplomat engage in some kind of nefarious activity, or at least is plastered in media as having done so, the government of the host nation makes a declaration that this diplomat is Persona non grata. This declaration is a formal request if not demand that the diplomat be recalled to his home country. Interestingly, diplomatic status holds some strange qualities that bear future study. It is almost like the diplomat is assumed to not be a person, under the law of the host nation, with diplomatic status, until the declaration is made/created Persona non grata. As I said, more future study.
This status of rejection is oh so familiar to many who stand apart from the throngs of persons, doing as they are told, obeying the news reports of where to go and when. And to not think, to not take responsibility for oneself and One’s family and refusing to carry the burden of following One’s own conscience, faith, or conviction.
It is my answer to the Authorities when they offer me opportunity to act as, for, and surety for the NAME/entity/title, Persona non grata! “ Your persona (Corp.) is non (not) grata (acceptable, pleasing, welcome, or approved).”
Have it good,
Arlen