July 1, 2011 - Terms of Law

In Terms of the Law…
Street English changes daily with use. Dictionary English takes a few years to acknowledge change. In legal English the meanings of words should never change, otherwise the law or its intent would change. Anytime one works with a legal document it should be done with a law dictionary at your side—preferably one dated close to the date of the document (in fact avoid the newer ones as they are useless). Never assume you know the meaning of a word; always look it up.

Let’s examine some of the more significant examples of confused legal terms over the next few entries. 

Thinking you know the meaning of this legal term will enslave you quicker than you can blink. It is a term that is very misunderstood.

One appeal court judge I faced adamantly refused to accept that a corporation was considered to be a person by the law. According in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition we read:

“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: a collection or property to which the law attributes the capacity or having rights and duties. (emphasis mine)

In Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, we read:

CORPORATION An association of shareholders created under law and regarded as an artificial person by the courts and thus "treated like any other independant person..." (emphasis mine)

Corporations are persons, but don’t be confused by the apparent distinction between natural and artificial. There are three cases I know of—the Municipal Act (s.7), the Bank Act (s.15(1)), and Human Rights Code (45.11(4)—wherein the legislators have granted to corporations “the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person , subject to the limitations set out in this Act.” If government, itself a corporation, can grant natural person capacity to a corporation, then a human individual cannot possibly be a mere natural person since our rights, which are acknowledged to be God given, exceed and precede that of every corporation including government.

Read some of the Acts that you think pertain to you or those you'd like to ditch. All of them focus on 'persons,' but do they have authority over humans? Answering this question may free you from unnecessary slavery.

In legislative acts, ‘person’ is defined in some of the following ways (underline and emphasis are mine):

“person” includes a corporation (Legislative Act - Ontario)

“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation (Interpretation Act - Federal)

“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends; (Income Tax Act)

It is consonant with reason that, if there are only two kinds of person—natural and artificial—and neither of these are representative of a human, then human individuals are not persons under Law. Humans, as individuals, having inalienable rights, are therefore not subject to the limitations found legislative acts, statutes, by-laws, etc.

Are you a person? Not unless you choose to be. Have you been deceived into believing these acts, statutes, by-laws, etc. apply to you?

What about the term ‘includes’...

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. <><