(I apologize beforehand for any typo's that may confuse...this post was hard on the fingers..LOL)
The government can be very "tricky" in their wording of things. Something to make yourself aware of and wise to very quickly if you want to gain the upper hand.
Here's 4 tricks outlined below:
The first "trick" of the government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute(Act). They(the government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law:
A 'natural-person' is a man or woman, created by God.
An 'artificial-person' is a corporation, created by Man.
Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, 3rd edition:
-->NATURAL PERSON. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
-->ARTIFICIAL PERSON. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties my be attached - e.g. a body corporate.
You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity"(ie ability) for rights and duties, but not necassarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached(ie assigned) by laws.
The second "trick" of the government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been re-defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically they are defined as follow:
from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means a natural person,
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
PERSON means a coproration(an artifitial-person).
from the Income Tax Act we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means an artifitial person.
PERSON means an artifitial person(amongst other things)
In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how INDIVIDUAL and PERSON are used and how they apply to natural and artifitial persons.
the third "trick" of the government is to use the word "includes" in definitions instead of using the word "means". They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to mis-interpret. If they used "means" instead of "includes" then their deception would be exposed, but by using "includes" they rely upon the reader to assume that "includes" expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same mann that "means" restrixcts the definition.
Here is a "means" definition of the word "person" from the Bank Act:
PERSON "means" a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Here is an 'includes' definition of the word "person" from the Interpretation Act:
PERSON, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'includes' a corporation.
To expose their deception, substitute the word 'means' and you have
PERSON, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'means' a corporation.(viz-artifitial-person)
Both "means" & "includes" are restrictive in scope because they only encompass a part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:
PERSON 'means' A or B or C(and nothing else)
PERSON 'includes' A and B and C(and nothing else)
There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of "includes":
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
The definition of the word "include" is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.
The fourth "trick" of the government is to modify how the word "includes" is used in order to make an EXPANSION in the definition when such expansion is required. This "trick" helps add confusion to the use of "includes" convincing the readers that "includes" is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:
includes, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
the expansive definitions usually take the following form:
PERSON means A or B or C AND includes D.
Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for "include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next 'source' for the definitions.
From Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, here is the definition for the word "include":
INCLUDE, To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. INCLUDING may, according to context, express an 'enlargment' and have the meaning of 'and' or 'in addition to', or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used.
INCLOSE. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence; or hem in, on all sides.
It is stated in the above definition that the verb INCLUDE only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, INCLUDING(but not limited to) enlarges the scope.
When uses in a definition, INCLUDE does not expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to confuse becuase we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume INCLUDE means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.
from now on, when you see the word INCLUDES, mentally substitute the word MEANS and you will not be "tricked" by this definition anymore.
FOR THE DOUBTING THOMAS:
If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the wrd INCLUDES and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word, the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word.
Today we live in a world where we are told that our fundamental rights still exist, but there are times when we wonder how this can be so. For example, we can have the full force of the law brought down upon us with a traffic violation, income tax regularity, refusing to fill in census forms, etc. These offences do no harm to another human being and in no way violate any individuals fundamental rights and freedoms, so we ask "how can this be?"
The answer is that your fundamental rights and freedoms are still intact as a natural-person, but you have been tricked into believing that you have to follow the Laws created for the artifitial-person.
Following the Second World War, the United Nations Assembly prepared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
I have never seen this done in any school. Have you?
In order to impliment SLAVERY of it's citizens and control them according to its whim, the government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the government to "own" everything produced or gained by its citizens.
The technique used by the government was to create a CORPORATION for every human-being in Canada. As creator of a CORPORATION, the government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a coporation does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by it creators and the corporation must obey its creator. These corporations must then have a business number and so one is assigned to each PERSON it creates. Such a number is called a S.I.N.(Slave Identification Number aka Social Insurance Number)
Finally, the government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, BankAccounts, Citizenship Cards, Passports, etc. In the 'Income Tax Act', the government just decrees that John Doe is the legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only contract involved in the annual Income Tax Return(yes it is a contract for one year) wherin John Doe gives his aggreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year.
Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is an Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation and must therefore foolow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE. Hence the confusion sets in because JohnDoe believes that he is JOHN DOE and therefore hads to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the government and its officials.
There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of "persons",
human-being: john doe
natural-person: John Doe
quasi natural/artifitial-person: John DOE
corporation/artificial-person: JOHN DOE
Nomme de Guerre: DOE, JOHN
Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above "persons":
The 'human-being' has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by GOD.
The 'natural-person' has all the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta and Canadian Bill of Rights.
The 'quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights, but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.
The 'corporation/artificial-person' has limited rights and freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.
The' Nomme de Guerre has no rights and freedoms and is a complete slave to the Admiral.
There is so much more than what I have just shared here. It is only the tip of the iceberg. But it is also enough to make you aware of what you are up against and the deceptions built into our system of rule by governments.
Somethings to think about.
I have no ID, no drivers license, no passport, no bank accounts.
I AM, a human being. I require no such things.
your humble servant,