Word Wise

Posted on Wednesday, January 24 at 13:35 by Anonymous
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: http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/word_wise.html

Note: http://www.hackcanada.c...

Contributed By


Topic



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments



    You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



    Latest Editorials

    more articles »

    Your Voice

    To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

    canadian bloggers | canadian news