March 15, 2017 - Commerce on Your Terms

Every environment requires a suit proper for that environment. Space requires a space suit, to function under water you a SCUBA suit, toxic environments require a hazmat suit, special events require a tuxedo or appropriate dress, etc. We either own the suit or we lease one. When we lease one we pay a fee every time we use it.

Commerce today is dominated by artifical persons 

In previous articlestheater_masks I've written, the term "person"  is a mask or the suit by which men/women can interact with artifical persons in the environment of commerce.

Men/women can only engage in commerce with other men/women. Artifical persons (corporations) can only interact with other artifical persons. To operate in commerce dominated by artifical persons every man/woman needs to put on an artifical person suita corporation, partnership, or proprietorship.

What is key here is that a man/woman cannot engage in commerce with artifical person

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54

"As, by the laws of his own state, the plaintiff could have no remedy against a corporation ... neither can he sustain a suit against a corporation ..." Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 14 How. 80 80 (1852)

Since government is an artifical person we require a means, an artificial person, through we can interface with them.

"The only legal person known to our form of law is the corporation..." Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 DLR 191 (Man. K.B.)

Give attention to every piece of mail you receive from any branch of government. It's always addressed to the capital letter NAME.

To facilitate this interface, the Crown has (without full disclosure) made available to us (by lease agreement) a corporation with business number (SIN) which it created and owns, through which we can act in commerce. For our convenience (or deception) this corporation has been named using our name styled in all CAPITAL LETTERS. This corporation is comprised of you, and the Crown. This gives them a stake in the affairs of the corporation and therefore the right, or standing, to bring a cause of action against us where we have violated the terms of using their corporationstatute law. Commerce on their terms.

It would beneficial to get a court ruling on whether or not our wages, seens as the corporation's income, belongs to the crown (CRA) and we get to keep a portion of it or if those wages are ours and we pay a lease fee—income tax—for the privilege.

Using their corporation obligates us to all their rules essentially making us serfs or slaves except that we do so knowingly or by ignorance give consent.

An Alternative on Our Terms

We could blindly agree to wear their suit—their corporation—or we could act though one of our choosing and creation.

There are three main types of legal person available to us for interaction in commerce—the corporation, the partnership, and the sole proprietorship.

Statute law—acts of parliament, by-laws, codes, and regulations, are limited in their application to corporations and partnerships as is stated in the interpretation acts and definitions;

person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21)

“person” includes a corporation; Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F

In this section,
person includes a partnershipIncome Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.))

The word "includes" is a legal term, not a common English term, and is chosen to mislead us.

Based on the principles of statute interpretation the legal term "includes" is a limiting term meaning that the legal term "person" means "a corporation" and/or in some places "a partnership" and nothing else—not a man, not a woman, and not a sole proprietorship. All statutes pertain to this type of "person" unless a more elaborate meaning is required.

In the Insurance Act, the term "person" includes other definitions:

person” includes an individual, corporation, association, partnership, organization, reciprocal or insurance exchange, member of the society known as Lloyd’s, fraternal society, mutual benefit society or syndicate; Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER I.8

Why do they go the extra length in defining "person" with many more types and not in the other acts, unless the meaning is very specific.

To date, I can find no reference in statute law that attempts to limit the rights of a sole proprietorship.

A sole proprietorship, also known as the sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one natural person and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business. Wikipedia

The sole proprietorship is that man/woman who registered the NAME as a business NAME for commercial purposes.

"For example, litigation against a sole proprietor would usually refer to the defendant as:
"John Doe, operating as Doe Painting, a sole proprietorship"
"Where a single individual carries on a business, it is necessarily conducted as either a sole proprietorship or a 
corporation." Duhaime's Law Dictionary

When John David Jones registers JOHN DAVID JONES as sole proprietorship he would be able to conduct his livelihood outside of the jurisdiction of statute law. 

I am aware of the issues with ownership and "registration." The problem with simply make a NAME an issue of "record" is that the courts may also simply rule to ignore it since it is not a part of their system.

The rules are established by those with the biggest or the most guns. We can make any rules we like, but they are only effective if we can enforce them.

My thought is that by 'registering' the sole proprietorship within their system they might be more affable to accepting it.

Regina, Crown prosecutors, and the like, are without standing in raising any statutory offence against us, be it driving, boating, fishing, working, etc., etc., etc..., if we were acting through our own sole proprietorship rather than their corporation. 

Standing, capacity of a party to bring suit in court... At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

Since we are not leasing the PERSON of their creation they will have, or will have, sustained no injury or harm. Unless the injured party is present in the Court any "Cause of Action" must be dismissed.

If they refused John David Jones' registration using JOHN DAVID JONES it would suggest that JOHN DAVID JONES is already registered by someone else... Doesn't that raise the question, "By whom?"

 Do you have any thoughts on this?

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. <><