[Guest]

<strong>Written By:</strong> Anonymous
<strong>Date:</strong> 2007-01-24 13:35:00
<a href="/article/93538738-word-wise">Article Link</a>

FIRST TRICK:
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.

SECOND TRICK:
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 corporation(an artificial-person).
from the Income Tax Act we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means an artifitial person.
PERSON means an artificial 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 artificial persons.

THIRD TRICK:
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 manner that "means" restricts 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.

FOURTH TRICK:
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:
also includes
and includes
includes, without limitation
including
the expansive definitions usually take the following form:
PERSON means A or B or C and includes D.

DEFINITIONS:
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 enlargement 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 used in a definition, INCLUDE does not expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to confuse because 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 word 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 artificial-person.

________________________________________

Submitted by : Dax[CANADA]
Source : Hack Canada
------

Long Live Socialism
LONG LIVE CANADA !!

You can find the rest of the text at:

<a href="http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/word_wise.html">http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/word_wise.html</a>

[RPW]

Promotes guaranteed incomes for the legal "profession"**. Nothing more than the greatest subsidy of all time.......

**Note that use of this word is in the same context as using it to describe used car salesmen.

---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck

[Dr Caleb]

I haven't visited HackCanada in a while. Great site!

Thanks for the article Dax. Keep 'em coming!

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

[Ed Deak]

Of course, the twisting, reinterpretation and falsifying of words has been one of the main foundations of the propaganda perpetrated by all ruling and economic systems.

This is especially easy to do when texts are translated from other languages, verbatim, into words and concepts not meant, or advocated by the original writers, but suitable for misinterpretation and the justification of crimes.

Or, when words and sentences are used partially, and out of context, the best examples being the way the "self interest" and "invisible hand" concepts of Adam Smith are now being used for the justification of unlimited greed and crime waves against humanity and the environment.

The most and worst misused word is "freedom, or free". The nazis and Soviets were fighting for freedom, as are now the capitalists and all the fundamentalist religions, while doing their utmost to enslave people under the fraudulent concepts of "free trade" and "free enterprise"

Then, we have my beloved "GDP", "Growth", "Productivity", claims and figures, all fraudulent.

"Consumers". No such things, as we can not consume anything, etc. etc.

What worries me most, is how the word "Democracy" is now falling to the fraudulent use for the justification of dictatorship and total exploitation, originally started and perpetrated by, and now copied from, the "Democratic Republics" of the Soviet bloc.

Ed Deak.

[RPW]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Peace">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Peace</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Love">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Love</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Plenty">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Plenty</a><p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

[Patm]

My favorite is still the US Republicans trying to assert that there is no right to privacy because "the word privacy doesn't appear in the constitution".

The modern meaning of the word is far different from its meaning when the US Constitution was written. Back then, one only needed "privacy" when they eliminated bodily wastes! Nobody would have written into the constitution "and the people shall have the right to not be stared at when they performed their necessaries".

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The above describes what we today call "right to privacy".

ANybody see Gonzales try to tell congress that the right to habeus corpus doesn't appear in the constitution?

[Diogenes]

Thanks for the recognition Dax, if i may call you that.
I appears that you and i are on the same page as far as the Natural person goes.
This site has the potential for more information to be changed on the topic we are now discussing.
I don't mind sharing with those here BUT I have a problem with those who have no knowledge of the subject and want to argue about what they don't know.
Any such exchanges are a mismatch.


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

[RPW]

<i>"...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."</i> <p>- Donald Rumsfeld</p> <p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

[Diogenes]

even a broken clock is right two times a day LOL

---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

[RPW]

And a 24-hour clock even less.......... :~)

---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck

[Diogenes]

As far as I remember *days* are comprised of 24 hours divided into am and pm. What are you driving at that I have missed?
A 24 hour clock is mark from 1 to 24 and therefore....

Therefore has no am or pm?




---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

[Dr Caleb]

Correct. 24 hour clocks have 24 hour marks, twice as many as 12 hour clocks.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_hour_analog_dial">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_hour_analog_dial</a><p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

[Diogenes]

and ships have bells<br />
and no matter which way you slice it a loaf is still a loaf<br />
<br />
and as we are into non sense... we may as well have fun at it. <br />
You may Jabberwockey time to your hearts contentment<br />
<br />
noon is noon and midnight is midnight<br />
<br />
Some come here to mark time and others are time mark'd<br />
<br />
The time has come hehehe<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html">http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html</a><br />
<br />
The sun was shining on the sea,<br />
Shining with all his might:<br />
He did his very best to make<br />
The billows smooth and bright--<br />
And this was odd, because it was<br />
The middle of the night.<br />
The moon was shining sulkily,<br />
Because she thought the sun<br />
Had got no business to be there<br />
After the day was done--<br />
"It's very rude of him," she said,<br />
"To come and spoil the fun!"<br />
<br />
The sea was wet as wet could be,<br />
The sands were dry as dry.<br />
You could not see a cloud, because<br />
No cloud was in the sky:<br />
No birds were flying overhead--<br />
There were no birds to fly.<br />
The Walrus and the Carpenter<br />
Were walking close at hand;<br />
They wept like anything to see<br />
Such quantities of sand:<br />
"If this were only cleared away,"<br />
They said, "it would be grand!"<br />
"If seven maids with seven mops<br />
Swept it for half a year.<br />
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,<br />
"That they could get it clear?"<br />
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,<br />
And shed a bitter tear.<br />
"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"<br />
The Walrus did beseech.<br />
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,<br />
Along the briny beach:<br />
We cannot do with more than four,<br />
To give a hand to each."<br />
The eldest Oyster looked at him,<br />
But never a word he said:<br />
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,<br />
And shook his heavy head--<br />
Meaning to say he did not choose<br />
To leave the oyster-bed.<br />
But four young Oysters hurried up,<br />
All eager for the treat:<br />
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,<br />
Their shoes were clean and neat--<br />
And this was odd, because, you know,<br />
They hadn't any feet.<br />
Four other Oysters followed them,<br />
And yet another four;<br />
And thick and fast they came at last,<br />
And more, and more, and more--<br />
All hopping through the frothy waves,<br />
And scrambling to the shore.<br />
<br />
The Walrus and the Carpenter<br />
Walked on a mile or so,<br />
And then they rested on a rock<br />
Conveniently low:<br />
And all the little Oysters stood<br />
And waited in a row.<br />
"The time has come," the Walrus said,<br />
"To talk of many things:<br />
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--<br />
Of cabbages--and kings--<br />
And why the sea is boiling hot--<br />
And whether pigs have wings."<br />
"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,<br />
"Before we have our chat;<br />
For some of us are out of breath,<br />
And all of us are fat!"<br />
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.<br />
They thanked him much for that.<br />
"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,<br />
"Is what we chiefly need:<br />
Pepper and vinegar besides<br />
Are very good indeed--<br />
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,<br />
We can begin to feed."<br />
"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,<br />
Turning a little blue.<br />
"After such kindness, that would be<br />
A dismal thing to do!"<br />
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.<br />
"Do you admire the view?<br />
<br />
"It was so kind of you to come!<br />
And you are very nice!"<br />
The Carpenter said nothing but<br />
"Cut us another slice:<br />
I wish you were not quite so deaf--<br />
I've had to ask you twice!"<br />
"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,<br />
"To play them such a trick,<br />
After we've brought them out so far,<br />
And made them trot so quick!"<br />
The Carpenter said nothing but<br />
"The butter's spread too thick!"<br />
"I weep for you," the Walrus said:<br />
"I deeply sympathize."<br />
With sobs and tears he sorted out<br />
Those of the largest size,<br />
Holding his pocket-handkerchief<br />
Before his streaming eyes.<br />
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,<br />
"You've had a pleasant run!<br />
Shall we be trotting home again?'<br />
But answer came there none--<br />
And this was scarcely odd, because<br />
They'd eaten every one.<br />
<p>---<br> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]<br />
<br />
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" <br />
<br />
lex ferenda

[RPW]

Which of coarse, makes the best sense of all!
(Written @ 0932 hours......)

---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck

[Diogenes]

Coarseness does as coarseness is, of course ;~)
but not to worry History-man, I will be gentle and use fine sandpaper to prepare you for the polish
...........................................................

And now that we see jabberwocky will both in deed and indeed make sense to those who actually live in the allegorical Matrix I offer an example of the kind of convolution language used to bafflegab and put into trance lesser minds.
Construction of Statutes
2nd. Edition. 1983. E. A. Driedger

Lord Greene said: “The first thing one has to do, I venture to think, in construing words in a section of an Act of Parliament is not to take those words in vacuo, so to speak, and to attribute to them what is sometimes called their natural or ordinary meaning. Few words in the English language have a natural or ordinary meaning in the sense that they must be so read that their meaning is entirely independent of their context. The method of construing statutes that I prefer is not to take particular words and attribute to them a sort of prima facie meaning which you may have to displace or modify. It is so to read the statute as a whole and ask oneself the question.” In this statue, in this context, relating to this subject-matter, what is the true meaning of the word?”….

________________________________________
Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. (12)
Lord Simon said: “Nowadays we should add to “natural and ordinary meaning” the words “in their context and according to the appropriate linguistic register.”

Construction of Statutes
2nd. Edition. 1983. E. A. Driedger
“There are different reasons for having definitions. In some cases it is intended to subtract from or add to the normal meaning; in some cases it is intended that a word or expression should have a secondary rather than its primary meaning.”







---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda