A non-profit site educating Canadians and Americans
about the differences between human-beings,
natural-persons and artificial-persons
man & woman,
created by God.
|How the Government created your new identity
how you can reclaim your unalienable rights.
created by Man.
|For the text of this web-site is with the absence of the legal-advice.||
To interpret 'Statutes' (viz. Acts) you must be aware of the principles of interpretation. Sometimes words are re-defined in Statutes so they may have a meaning different from their ordinary meaning. When searching for the definition of a word, the hierarchy shown below applies. You have to look down the priority list until you find the word definition for which you are seeking:
Priority Order of Word Definitions:
When used in a definition, the verb "includes" appears to have been adjudicated so as to expand the ordinary definition to include additional scope. Although we may not necessarily agree with this, we have to work with judgements which have been made, even though said judgements may be incorrect. What "includes" does is force you to look elsewhere in the Act to find where your fundamental rights are recognized. See Government Tricks for more details.
As an example, look at the Interpretation Act (herein the 'IA'), section 35. (1) where the word person is re-defined include a corporation as follows:
In every enactmentThe IA defines the words to be used in all Statutes unless overridden by a local definition within that Statute (according to the hierarchy above). Therefore almost all Statutes really only apply to corporations, such as JOHN DOE (see Natural versus Artificial), but the Statutes may also apply to natural-persons (with which we don't agree) unless you can discover where they Statues violate your human rights.
For example, in the Criminal Code of Canada (herein the 'CCC'), section 2 Definitions, the word person is used but not re-defined differently from the IA. As the CCC is the main Act with the same subject matter as that of Bill C-24, and since person is not re-defined for the purposes of these Acts, the definition of the word person from the IA must apply. Therefore the CCC as well as Bill C-24 appear to apply to artificial-persons (but we have to consider natural-persons too, even though we don't agree), thereby allowing the CCC to apply to natural as well as artificial-persons. Where the CCC violates the natural-person's fundamental rights and freedoms must be discovered as required. The CCC may basically by in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Download) but such violation may be required to maintian order in our society (although we don't agree). As most people are basically honest and responsible, the CCC is really meant for those when are neither honest nor responsible.
As another example, look in Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition) at the general definition of person and you will see the general definition encompasses both natural & artificial:
person 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. 3. The living body of a human being <contraband found on the smuggler's person>.
From this general definition you will see that person includes both human beings and entities (corporations and other legal entities). However in the IA, person could have been defined as above, but it was not done so, creating doubt as to its interpretation. A restrictive definition would ensure that most Statutes only apply to CORPORATIONS (artificial-persons) so as not to infringe on the natural-person's fundamental rights and freedoms as outlined in the Magna Charta, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however it now appears that each natural-person must fight for and protect his human rights as they are no longer protected by the rule of law. Tyranny is the ultimate result of such corrupt government practices which appear to exist world-wide.
Here is a very interesting excerpt from "American Law and Procedure", (1910) Vol.13, pp. 137-162:
What are the Schools Teaching?:
The word 'includes' in a statute is not restrictive. So, person means
Lastly, the 'legal fiction' concept is not about human beings - over
UBC Faculty of Law
Look at the above words "person means person (as we would commonly understand that word) AND includes people ..." essetially ignorning the heirarchy of Definitions, and attempting to re-define "includes" contrary to Sullivan & Driedger on the Construction of Statutes. See the Third Trick for clarification.
Look at the condoning of slavery in the above words "human beings - over which the state governs" and you should be concerned that the UBC Faculty of Law states that the state has dominion to govern human beings.
Is there any hope for our freedoms when lawyers are being taught this drivel?
RE-INSERTED TEXT WHICH DISAPPEARED:
So, that argument has always failed.
May I suggest the following replacement for Articles 3 & 4:
THE NAME GAME
3: The primary trap laid by the legal world in their parliamentary statutes and court system is by the “name game”. When one was born, one’s parents were coerced into “registering” the live birth with(originally the county, and later in Provincial Vital Statistics) . Register comes from the Latin, Regis,(the King or Queen). Thus, the act of registering is the ‘offering up” of the child to the King. Upon that form, one finds a space for “given names” and one for the family name, called the “surname”. Now, look up the definition of “sur” in any dictionary, and you will find that it means “over, above, superior,primary”. Historically, a “family” name was a referential name (inferior to) for the “given” names.
Thus, a name with a surname attached is a fiction, a creation and intellectual property of government.
This is the name that is imprinted on the birth certificate, a copy of which you get when you order that document from Vital Statistics and pay the fee. If it were YOUR birth certificate, you wouldn’t have to pay for the copy, and you would be able to redeem the original.
The birth certificate is a negotiable instrument sold to the international bankers as offered collateral(the future labour of the associated human body) in the national bankruptcy. Since the named entityon the birth certificate is thus a DEBTOR, the name is changed to an “all caps” spelling as a codefor legal purposes. It is not the “all caps” spelling that indicates the fictional entity/strawman - it is the family name being made a “surname”.
As with insurance calculations on odds of longevity, the Crown estimates an amount of projected labour the individual human may have, and bestows a credit upon that particular surname with referential given names, and then proceeds to use those credits for government borrowing from theInternational bankers. All “currency” is “credits”. There is no real money - valuable metal money and“I.O.U.s” called “promissory note currency” based upon the hard money.
All taxes, including income tax, is the governments’ methods to extract that only asset that is notalready encumbered and promised by the bankrupt corporate government. And, since the servant,the government, cannot take the King’s (free will adult humans’) money to pay their debts, or get more credits from the bankers, they deceive people into believing/accepting/acknowledging that they are “one and the same” as the fiction surname and referential given names createdand owned by government/Crown.
WHAT ABOUT “OUR” NAME?
Names are “given” to the child by its parents. Given names are the real “surname”. The “family” name is inherited, and is a reference names to the surnames. But, there is a catch. A “gift” is a form of “contract”. A contract must have an offerer (offer) and acceptor or receiver (acceptance), both of which must be voluntary by all parties concerned. A minor cannot be party to a contract - so the gift of a name cannot lawfully be accepted by the infant. And no adult has ever done anything to “accept” the given names upon reaching adulthood (majority). Thus, adult humans do not have a name or number -they (we) only have nick names or commonly called names.
It can be further noted that an adult human cannot have a name, as only “things” have names. Anadult human is a free-will mind occupying a human body. A mind is not a “thing”, but is only a“process” – the interaction of electrons within a human brain – an electro-chemical computer.
When we say: “I” or “I am”, or “I will”, it is your mind that is the source of such a statement, not your physical body. Thus, the only lawful name we can give ourselves is “I” or “Me”. All others are, fiction, and mostly “hearsay”, as others told us in times past.
FOR THE DOUBTING THOMAS:
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"