(Eldon Warman edition)

---

The governments can be very "tricky" in their wording of things.  Something to make yourself aware of and wise to very quickly if you want to gain the upper hand.  Armed with the information here, all American visitors are challenged to search their own laws and see how much of the data provided here applies to them in their country - as well as all other western nations.  Only by searching out the truth of the laws and your original rights and freedoms yourselves, will you be empowered to protect your 'natural person' as a human-being.

Here's 4 tricks outlined below:

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.

Comment: Both types of "person" are legal fictions.  A natural person is a human in the false or fictional status of slave crewmember on a make-believe ship called a "body politic".  An "artificial person" is a make-believe ship called a body corporate or politic.

The definition found in dictionaries states that a natural person is a human being.  In legal terms, a human being refers to a human body without considering the mind - it being the captain of the vessel called the human body.  A vessel at sea (equivalent to an 'adult human') is impervious to outside command, as the captain is the supreme commander.  A human who is "natural person status", is as a captain of a vessel in 'dry dock' – he and his vessel being subservient to the vessel owner, the Crown.

The natural status of an (adult) human is "free will", and thus sovereign over his own human body.

Outside control is equivalent to some form of "piracy" - call it what you may.

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.

Comment: "Capacity for" is not the same as "Having" rights and duties.  The only 'duties' a free-will human has are those found in the negative and positive form of the Golden Rule – Do (or, do not) unto others as you would have (not have) others do unto you.  Thus, for the free-will human, rights and duties come from the Creator Father, not from government.  The "created" cannot dictate to the "creator" – and as the Declaration of Independence says: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ..."

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.

Comment: The definition of "individual" in the Income Tax Act says:

"Individual" means a person other than a corporation; The only other "person" besides the corporate person (artificial person) is the "natural person".

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.

Comment: Regarding Item 3 & 4: There have been a lot of US cases where this has been the argument, and the judges all come back with the fact that the term has to be taken in context, and that if others are mentioned within the text, then the meaning means "also includes", or "includes but not limited to".

So, that argument has always failed.

May I suggest the following replacement for Articles 3 & 4

The Name Game

3: The primary trap laid by the legal world in their parliamentary statutes and court system is by the "name game".  When one was born, one's parents were coerced into "registering" the live birth with originally the county, and later in Provincial Vital Statistics).  Register comes from the Latin, Regis, (the King or Queen).  Thus, the act of registering is the "offering up" of the child to the King.  Upon that form, one finds a space for "given names" and one for the family name, called the "surname".  Now, look up the definition of "sur" in any dictionary, and you will find that it means "over, above, superior, primary".  Historically, a "family" name was a referential name (inferior to) for "given" names.

Thus, a name with a surname attached is a fiction, a creation and intellectual property of government.

This is the name that is imprinted on the birth certificate, a copy of which you get when you order that document from Vital Statistics and pay the fee.  If it were YOUR birth certificate, you wouldn’t have to pay for the copy, and you would be able to redeem the original.

The birth certificate is a negotiable instrument sold to the international bankers as offered collateral (the future labour of the associated human body) in the national bankruptcy.  Since the named entity on the birth certificate is thus a DEBTOR, the name is changed to an "all caps" spelling as a code for legal purposes.  It is not the "all caps" spelling that indicates the fictional entity/strawman - it is the family name being made a "surname".

As with insurance calculations on odds of longevity, the Crown estimates an amount of projected labour the individual human may have, and bestows a credit upon that particular surname with referential given names, and then proceeds to use those credits for government borrowing from the International bankers.  All "currency" is "credits".  There is no real money - valuable metal money and "I.O.U.s" called "promissory note currency" based upon the hard money.

All taxes, including income tax, is the governments' methods to extract that only asset that is not already encumbered and promised by the bankrupt corporate government.  And, since the servant, the government, cannot take the King's (free will adult humans') money to pay their debts, or get more credits from the bankers, they deceive people into believing/accepting/acknowledging that they are "one and the same" as the fiction surname and referential given names created and owned by government/Crown.

What About "Our" Real Name?

4: Names are "given" to the child by its parents.  Given names are the real "surname". The "family" name is inherited, and is a reference names to the surnames.  But, there is a catch.  A "gift" is a form of "contract".  A contract must have an offerer (offer) and acceptor or receiver (acceptance), both of which must be voluntary by all parties concerned.  A minor cannot be party to a contract - so the gift of a name cannot lawfully be accepted by the infant.  And no adult has ever done anything to "accept" the given names upon reaching adulthood (majority).  Thus, adult humans do not have a name or number - they (we) only have nick names or commonly called names.

It can be further noted that an adult human cannot have a name, as only "things" have names. An adult human is a free-will mind occupying a human body.  A mind is not a "thing", but is only a "process" – the interaction of electrons within a human brain – an electro-chemical computer.

When we say: "I" or "I am", or "I will", it is your mind that is the source of such a statement, not your physical body.  Thus, the only lawful name we can give ourselves is "I" or "Me".  All others are, fiction, and mostly "hearsay", as others told us in times past.

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.

Following the Second World War, the United Nations Assembly prepared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

I have never seen this done in any school.  Have you?

In order to impliment SLAVERY of it's citizens and control them according to its whim, the government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the government to "own" everything produced orgained by its citizens.  The technique used by the government was to create a CORPORATION for every human-being in Canada.  As creator of a CORPORATION, the government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION.  As a legal entity, a corporation does not have feelings and cannot be hurt.  It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by it creators and the corporation must obey its creator.  These corporations must then have a business number and so one is assigned to each PERSON it creates.

Such a number is called a S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number aka Social Insurance Number)

Finally, the government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities.  Such a position requires a contract since the Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION.  So, the government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, Bank Accounts, Citizenship Cards, Passports, etc.

In the 'Income Tax Act', the government just decrees that John Doe is the legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only contract involved in the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his aggreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year.  Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is an Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation and must therefore follow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE.  Hence the confusion sets in because John Doe believes that he is JOHN DOE and therefore has to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the government and its officials.

Capitalization:

There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of "persons";

• human-being: john doe
• natural-person: John Doe
• quasi natural/artificial-person: John DOE
• corporation/artificial-person: JOHN DOE
• Nomme de Guerre: DOE, JOHN

Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above "persons":

• The 'human-being' has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by GOD.
• The 'natural-person' has all the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta and Canadian Bill of Rights.
• The 'quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights, but not all rights.  At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.
• The 'corporation/artificial-person' has limited rights and freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.
• The' Nomme de Guerre has no rights and freedoms and is a complete slave to the Admiral.

Comment: Regarding capitalization:

From the OREGON RULES OF COURT

FEDERAL 1994

• RULE 1005:  PETITION CAPTIONS
• RULE 1005-1:  DEBTOR'S CURRENT NAME

The caption of each petition shall include the debtor's full and correct name in capital letters.  If the debtor is an individual, then the first, middle and last names shall be used.  The first entity name in the caption shall be deemed the debtor except in a joint petition where the first full name shown for each individual shall be deemed to be the name of each debtor.

[ Adopted effective December 1, 1991. ]

Thus it is, folks, the all caps spelling of your strawman/birth certificate name indicates a 'debtor' - one responsible for the debt of the corporation called the United States (or Canada).

You, by accepting the birth certificate name as your own, have the false status of dissident/disobedient slave imposed upon you, so that the banksters of the Vatican can steal your life = time = labour without any rules obligating the observance of unalienable rights.  Check the name on your bank account, credit cards, licenses, government correspondence - to see how they spell the birth certificate name.

There is so much more than what I have just shared here.  It is only the tip of the iceberg.  But it is also enough to make you aware of what you are up against and the deceptions built into our system of rule by governments.

Somethings to think about:
I have no ID, no drivers license, no passport, no bank accounts, no address.
I AM, a human being.  I require no such things.
Free yourselves now.
your humble servant,
ancient clown

---