October 31, 2017 - Tricked?

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several Provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by The British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual."

They admit here that the sovereignty of an individual (any one man or woman) is unlimited and can not be limited by an inferior entitythe parliament of Canada, the several provinces, the various territories, or any other corporation.

How is that?

God created mankind, mankind created government, and government created persons? It's a principle in law that we are obligated to obey our creator not that which we've created unless we have consented.

If this is so, and it is, why does it seem that we have to obey them?

Simple. They've use language and tactics to trick us.

Even though we use the term "person" on the street when refering to people it is legally incorrect and has led us into confusion.

Canada's Interpretation Act, the act which defines the terms in all of Canada's laws (statutes), defines the following:

  • Parliament means the Parliament of Canada; 
  • person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;
  • province means a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;

Let look at the carefully planned syntax they've used to trick us.

"Means" is clear, I think, in the first one. They don't want to write "Parliament of Canada" every time, but look at the others. 

Note first what "province" means. Canada consists of two kinds of corporate (land mass) divisions—"provinces" and federal "territories." A "territory" is not a province, however, for all government documents they're tell us that, while "province" only means a "province of Canada", in their documents, it will refer to both kinds of divisions. They've used the word "includes" and named each of the federal territories so that none can be excluded. The legal term "includes" is one used to exclude all kinds not specifically mentioned.

INCLUDE. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, keep within) To confine within... Black's Law Dictionary

INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. A time honoured principle of law language.

"Include/includes" is different from "and includes" in legalese. When dealing with two of more different kinds, wording is critical.

Legally there are two distinct kinds of person per law dictionaries:

"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation;...It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons... Black's Law Dictionary

Because there are two distinct types involved legislative acts must be clear as which they refer—and, the second deffinition above, they are. 

"Person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person" is confined to the artificial kind and excludes the natural kind.

"Person" in Acts, Statutes, codes, by-laws, etc. means a corporation, the artificial person, the legal entity, and it excludes mankind.

Government has authority only over corporations, so to get us under their authority they need to fool us into believing that their private codes and statutes apply to us. They've done this using the masterful use of the language—trickery, deceit.

Any and every reference to a "person" in legislative, provincial, terriorial, municipal, or regional acts, statutes, codes, regulations, etc. applies to corporations and not to mankind—unless you consent.


Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><