Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:

    An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.

    An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.

    A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.

    A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).

    A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.

Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;

Effect:

    1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
    2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
    3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
    6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
    7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
    8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

⚑ Government Tricks. Natural Law, Natural Man, Natural Rights. The TRUTH Shall Set You FREE.


You were born a living soul with flesh and blood, with the responsibility to respect other life and treat your fellow man with love and kindness, and with a life-spirit provided by the Creator. Your unalienable rights are for life, liberty and property, and to respect those rights of other human beings on this planet, our home.

In an attempt to create a safe society, men elected Governments to protect and uphold your unalienable rights and your responsibilities to the Creator and your fellow man. After a while, Governments became corrupt and now we have to ask: How could Governments and other "regulatory bodies" possibly make you follow their rules and be subservient to them since your true allegiance is to your Creator? How can you serve two masters - your creator and your Government? The answer is that you cannot serve two masters, therefore the Government had to create a system that tricks you into thinking you must serve them, where in fact, Governments must serve us, the people.

One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an "artificial-person / corporation" who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you.


But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also have provided recognition in law for another legal entity called a "natural-person" (simply meaning a human-being in the law) with which most of your fundamental rights are still intact. So when you interact with the law, you may be represented as an artificial or natural person - you choose.

This concept of an "artificial-person", a legally obligated entity, that appears to be you, but in fact is not you, is a little difficult to grasp at first.

Once the Government creates an "artificial-person" that simulates you (i.e. appears to be the same as you from your point of view), but is actually a contrivance of government laws and regulations -- then they've got you, so to speak. And if you fill out paperwork and sign documents as if you were this artificial-person then they can make you totally subservient to all their rules and regulations:

    Make you believe you are obligated to pay taxes,
    Make you believe that you have to obtain a driver's licence,
    Make you believe that you have to work as an Employee.

Natural vs. Artificial:


There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person".

A natural-person is defined as "A human being that has the capacity for rights and duties". Note that the word capacity means the ability, but not the obligation for rights and duties.

An artificial-person is defined as "A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach - e.g. a body corporate". Sometimes an artificial-person may be referred to as a CORPORATION, which is not always the same as an Incorporated Company. These subtle re-definitions are made in Statutes whenever the Government wants to change the meaning of the word.

There are many different types of artificial-persons, each with different duties. Here are a few different types of artificial-persons:
Taxpayer, Resident, Driver, Voter, Citizen, Homeowner, Officer.

Whenever you read any Law or Statute, you must be sure to check the meaning of the word "person" as it applies to that particular law.

In order to implement 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 or gained by its citizens.

The technique used by the Government was to create an artificial-person (referred to herein as a CORPORATION for emphasis) 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 its creator and the CORPORATION must obey its creator.

So for every John Doe human-being in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE CORPORATION. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and COMPANIES. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person.

As a CORPORATION needs a business number, in order to do business, the Government assigns a unique business number to each JOHN DOE it creates. Such a business number is called the S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number a.k.a. Social Insurance Number). The creator (Master) can then track all activities of the Slave and claim ownership on all property and income of the Slave.

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 is the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement 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.

Here is a quotation from "Memorandum on Law of the Name", which summarizes the so-called Name Game used by the courts (the All-Caps NAME is a legal-fiction: something presumed by law to be true until said presumption is rebutted and the truth is brought forward):
'It is clear that the existance of a NAME written as all-caps is a necessity-created legal-fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised, and the supporting particulares are outlined in this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement - correction - for all parties of an action of purported law. However, the current "courts" cannot correct this since they are all based upon presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic NAMES. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps NAME and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all life on this planet in a vice grip for millenia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point, the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labours, the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.'

Government Tricks:

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 presume 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 only two "persons" in law, a human being, and everything else:
    A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

    An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Comment from DetaxCanada: 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 of  “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, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

    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 may attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Comment from DetaxCanada: “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, …”

Alternative expressions for a "natural-person" are "real-person", "human-person", or "human-being". Since governments have recently become paranoid about the use of the term "natural-person" perhaps it is better to use the terms "human-person" or "human-being" instead. Other terms like "private-person" could be misleading because a "private legal entity" (such as a private corporation versus a public corporation) may be called a private-person, which should not be mistaken with a natural-person, human-person, or human-being. The trick is to get you to believe that "private" means "human", which is not necessarily true.

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 presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been 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 follows:

From the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

Third Trick:

The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein.

Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject means objects;

Effect:
1. means implies a substitution of words.
2. means creates a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
4. the objects need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.

Example from the Bank Act:

    "person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act:

    Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person.

Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject includes players;
Effect:

    1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject.
    2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject.
    3. the subject needs to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective.
    6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject.
    7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Income Tax Act:

    "employee" includes officer;
    "corporation" includes an incorporated company;
    "insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy;
    "taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;
    "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;

Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:

    An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.

    An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.

    A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.

    A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).

    A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.

Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;

    Effect:

    1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
    2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
    3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
    6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
    7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
    8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Interpretation Act:

    "province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;

⚑ Government Tricks. Natural Law, Natural Man, Natural Rights. The TRUTH Shall Set You FREE.



You were born a living soul with flesh and blood, with the responsibility to respect other life and treat your fellow man with love and kindness, and with a life-spirit provided by the Creator. Your unalienable rights are for life, liberty and property, and to respect those rights of other human beings on this planet, our home.

In an attempt to create a safe society, men elected Governments to protect and uphold your unalienable rights and your responsibilities to the Creator and your fellow man. After a while, Governments became corrupt and now we have to ask: How could Governments and other "regulatory bodies" possibly make you follow their rules and be subservient to them since your true allegiance is to your Creator? How can you serve two masters - your creator and your Government? The answer is that you cannot serve two masters, therefore the Government had to create a system that tricks you into thinking you must serve them, where in fact, Governments must serve us, the people.

One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an "artificial-person / corporation" who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you.


But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also have provided recognition in law for another legal entity called a "natural-person" (simply meaning a human-being in the law) with which most of your fundamental rights are still intact. So when you interact with the law, you may be represented as an artificial or natural person - you choose.

This concept of an "artificial-person", a legally obligated entity, that appears to be you, but in fact is not you, is a little difficult to grasp at first.

Once the Government creates an "artificial-person" that simulates you (i.e. appears to be the same as you from your point of view), but is actually a contrivance of government laws and regulations -- then they've got you, so to speak. And if you fill out paperwork and sign documents as if you were this artificial-person then they can make you totally subservient to all their rules and regulations:

    Make you believe you are obligated to pay taxes,
    Make you believe that you have to obtain a driver's licence,
    Make you believe that you have to work as an Employee.

Natural vs. Artificial:


There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person".

A natural-person is defined as "A human being that has the capacity for rights and duties". Note that the word capacity means the ability, but not the obligation for rights and duties.

An artificial-person is defined as "A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach - e.g. a body corporate". Sometimes an artificial-person may be referred to as a CORPORATION, which is not always the same as an Incorporated Company. These subtle re-definitions are made in Statutes whenever the Government wants to change the meaning of the word.

There are many different types of artificial-persons, each with different duties. Here are a few different types of artificial-persons:
Taxpayer, Resident, Driver, Voter, Citizen, Homeowner, Officer.

Whenever you read any Law or Statute, you must be sure to check the meaning of the word "person" as it applies to that particular law.

In order to implement 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 or gained by its citizens.

The technique used by the Government was to create an artificial-person (referred to herein as a CORPORATION for emphasis) 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 its creator and the CORPORATION must obey its creator.

So for every John Doe human-being in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE CORPORATION. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and COMPANIES. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person.

As a CORPORATION needs a business number, in order to do business, the Government assigns a unique business number to each JOHN DOE it creates. Such a business number is called the S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number a.k.a. Social Insurance Number). The creator (Master) can then track all activities of the Slave and claim ownership on all property and income of the Slave.

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 is the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement 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.

Here is a quotation from "Memorandum on Law of the Name", which summarizes the so-called Name Game used by the courts (the All-Caps NAME is a legal-fiction: something presumed by law to be true until said presumption is rebutted and the truth is brought forward):
'It is clear that the existance of a NAME written as all-caps is a necessity-created legal-fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised, and the supporting particulares are outlined in this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement - correction - for all parties of an action of purported law. However, the current "courts" cannot correct this since they are all based upon presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic NAMES. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps NAME and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all life on this planet in a vice grip for millenia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point, the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labours, the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.'

Government Tricks:

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 presume 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 only two "persons" in law, a human being, and everything else:
    A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

    An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Comment from DetaxCanada: 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 of  “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, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

    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 may attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Comment from DetaxCanada: “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, …”

Alternative expressions for a "natural-person" are "real-person", "human-person", or "human-being". Since governments have recently become paranoid about the use of the term "natural-person" perhaps it is better to use the terms "human-person" or "human-being" instead. Other terms like "private-person" could be misleading because a "private legal entity" (such as a private corporation versus a public corporation) may be called a private-person, which should not be mistaken with a natural-person, human-person, or human-being. The trick is to get you to believe that "private" means "human", which is not necessarily true.

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 presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been 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 follows:

From the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

Third Trick:

The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein.

Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject means objects;

Effect:
1. means implies a substitution of words.
2. means creates a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
4. the objects need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.

Example from the Bank Act:

    "person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act:

    Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person.

Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject includes players;
Effect:

    1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject.
    2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject.
    3. the subject needs to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective.
    6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject.
    7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Income Tax Act:

    "employee" includes officer;
    "corporation" includes an incorporated company;
    "insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy;
    "taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;
    "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;

Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:

    An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.

    An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.

    A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.

    A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).

    A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.

Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;

    Effect:

    1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
    2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
    3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
    6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
    7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
    8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Interpretation Act:

    "province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;

Interpretation of the above Example from the Interpretation Act:

    Any pre-existing definition for "province" is substituted with "a province of Canada", and any of the players (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) may play the role of a province, but not vice versa. For example, any province may not play the role of Nunavut.

The use of the word includes 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. Now that includes is no longer believed to be restrictive, you have to look eslewhere in the statutes to find out where your rights, as a natural person, are preserved. Your rights will be upheld somewhere, you just have to find out where.

Fourth Trick:

The fourth 'trick' is directly attributable to a defect in the English language in respect of the verb 'to be'. In the English language there are many different meanings of the verb 'to be' and the reader/listener may misinterpret the intended (or 'trick') meaning and thereby draw the wrong conclusion from its use.

The two different and distinct meanings of the verb 'to be' which concern us are: the one meaning which relates to the essence of the subject (such as the table is made of wood; he is strong) and the other meaning which relates to a temporary location or position (such as the table is over there; he is a swimmer).

To be succinct, the two relevant meanings of interest, in this 'trick', may be summarized by the following simple definition:

    to be, means 'to have the essence of, to exist or live' (in the sense of essence), or 'to occupy a place or position' (in the sense of location or position).

By the way, the noun 'essence' requires the helper verb 'to have'. Be careful with 'exist' because an artificial person can 'exist' on a piece of paper somewhere in a file, but an artifical person cannot exist as 'living'.

Now to utilize the Fourth Trick associated with 'to be', a judge may make a ruling as follows:

    "a natural person is a taxpayer", or "a natural person is a driver"

which immediately translates into the valid conclusion, with regard to occupying a position (because someone has to do the paperwork), that:

    "a natural person occupies the position of a taxpayer"

However, a judge cannot make a ruling that:

    'a natural person has the essence of a taxpayer'
    'a natural person lives as a taxpayer'

because human rights are immediately violated and slavery woud be condoned by the judge.


The conclusion, in respect of the Fourth Trick, is to be careful when reading the word "is" and check for 'essence' or 'location'. What you think you read may not be in fact what you really read.

You can very quickly get clarification by asking: "When you say is, do you mean occupies a position, or do you mean has the essence of (lives as)?" With this question you will immediately expose any 'trick' which is being utilized.

Spanish is one of the few languages which has maintained a distinction by having two separate verbs; the verb 'ser', derived from the Latin 'esse' (English 'essence'), is used 'to have essence'; and the verb 'estar', derived from the Latin 'stare' (English 'state'), is used for a 'temporary location or position'.

Fifth Trick:

The fifth 'trick' is the use of the word 'you' to create joinder between the one who speaks, and the artificial-person.

Achilles’ Heel, is “You”
Who “you” are, is no longer t
he question. The question is,
who “IS” you. The word “you”
gets more people into trouble than any othe
r word currently utiliz
ed within our legal and
financial systems. 
It is virtually impossible to fully explain
the proper grammatical usage of the word “you”,
insofar as proper Englis
h is concerned.  

Wikipedia: You (stressed 0/ˈjuː/; unstressed /jə/) is the second-personpersonal pronoun in Modern English. Ye was the original nominative form; the oblique/objective form is you(functioning originally as both accusative and dative), and the possessive is your
 or yours.

YourDictionary.com:you (yo̵̅o̅) pronounpl.you1.  the person to whom one is speaking or writing: personal pronoun in the second person (sing. & pl.): you is the nominative and objective form (sing. & pl.), yours the possessive (sing. & pl.), and yourself
(sing.) and yourselves (pl.) the reflexive and intensive; your is the possessive pronominal adjective  2.  any person: equivalent in sense to indefinite one: you can never be sure!

Note: Though you is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in addressing a single person, yet properly always with a plural verb. (No confusion here!) Loosely, the word “you” is a pronoun, that
cannot be properly grammatically used according to English language rules. When spoken, “you” is commonly heard by everyone present, as if it were being addressed to each of them, individually, in a singular sense. We erroneously hear a si
ngular inclination of the properly plural expression, as in one speaking to a group and saying; “I’m happy to share this with you.a”

Properly, “you” is indeed “plural”, yet the word “you” is often spoken as if it were in reference to a singular man or woman. In such instances, the word “you” induces a natural inclination for everyone in an audience to hear it as being addressed singularly to
a specific individual within that audience, particularly if the word “you” follows an antecedent noun; as in one speaking to that same group, and saying; “Yes George, I’m happy to share this with you.” In “law”, this word “you”, is properly
utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when addressing the singular mind(or the single party with volition)within the plural-nature-construct of a PERSON. The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity
 that IS that PERSON. In this sense, addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper use of the word “you”, as anyone could imagine. 

Sixth Trick:

The sixth 'trick' is the use of the Birth Certificate to create a bunch of legal entities with NAMEs derived from the Birth Certificate, and to get you to agree that you are the same as the NAME on the Birth Certificate.

Unraveling a little of the TRUTH that shall help to set you Free:
You are a natural being, born of natural parents. Your parents "gave" you a
natural   name,   then   they   unwittingly   "granted"   by   means   of   commercial
exchange  (a legal  contract),
  a duplicate  version of that  same  name  to the province.
This duplicate “name” was also created by your parents, thus it was
their private property, to do with as they desired.
Subsequently, because they did not know of exactly what they had done, and
because therefore they were unable to properly explain to you what they had done (because much of what they had done was induced upon them by trickery)
,you unwittingly pretended to be  that
 duplicate name, or pretended that you
could be identified by that duplicate name, every time you allowed yourself to
be identified by it, and or every time you effectively operated as it, by acting or
behaving as if you were it, or could be identified by it.

Your copy of the birth certificate is not a contract, it is merely a copy of areceipt, evidencing the irrevocable gift  (grant)  of THEIR name made by yourparents. They created/made that duplicate name, thus they had the right togrant it to whoever, or whatever "state" they desired. You do not qualify to
hold an original receipt, because you were not a party to the original contract,nor did you make the original grant – they did. 

They willingly made a legal transaction and reversing any legal transaction issubject to statute limitations – in other words, just because I have a receipt formy car, does not entitle me to go back to the dealer after 30 years and say, “I
made  a mistake, here is your car, give me my money back.” Such a notion surelyis even less realistic, if I were thinking of trying to undo a contract that I wasnot even a party to

Likewise with the name. In order to even attempt to reverse that apparentmistaken transaction, your parents (and only your parents – not you) would haveto assemble evidence that they have the ability to return all previously claimedbenefits   –   benefits   they   arguably   “accepted”,   thus   ratifying   the   subject
contract, but even if they could prove what those benefits were  (which wedoubt), and then if they could establish capacity to return them, the other sideis not under any obligation to accept a return of those benefits that have beenpaid in good faith, nor are they obligated to return that which they have legallypurchased and paid for in good faith, – the duplicate corporate name.

Alternatively, your parents would have to prove that they had been tricked, orfraudulently induced into exchanging their duplicate artificial name for thealleged state benefits. The problem with this approach is simple.  The duplicate
name was created by your parents at no actual or contingent cost to them. Your1parents   exchanged   that   “free”   duplicate   name   for   good   and   valuableconsideration, which they actually received, and benefited from, perhaps onemight even argue, unjustly.

Subsequently, your parents have never been obligated directly or indirectly togive, or to to provide anything further in consideration of the actual benefitsthey have received, and perhaps continue to receive, thus technically, “they”
have not been defrauded of anything. In fact it could be argued that theyreceived significant real value for something that actually cost them nothing.Therefore the birth certificate that you hold does not constitute a trust, nor didthe prior gift made by your parents by the registration of your birth, create one.

You, by your active behavior, create a de facto trust, in and of the name thatnever was, or never has been yours.They do not orchestrate your behavior, you alone do that – voluntarily, albeit,unwittingly.   Remember, you are exercising your right of self-determination.
Fortunately,  there is always a way to correct a mistake, but first everyone mustrecognize, accept, and comprehend what the mistake was, how it happened,who committed it, why it has gone unnoticed until now, who benefited, andhow the mistake can be repaired, or at least prevented from recurring.
We were created to govern ourselves, and we were appointed a lineage ofkings & queens that acknowledge that aspect of our creation. Apparently wehave an inherent right to “self-determination”. What this really means, is thatwhatever we determine to do, is perceived by others, as being done by our own
free will. This perception also applies to those things that we mistakenly do, orthat we have been tricked into doing.

Mistake number one, performed within the parameters of self-determination,was made by your parents, when they were tricked into creating a duplicate ofyour   natural   name.   Yet   even   that   trick   did   not   directly   defraud   them   of
anything, because as we have previously said, they received significant benefitsfor having freely created and given up that duplicate name.This duplicate version of your name is interesting, inasmuch as it is not directlyassociated with any natural or living being, and must therefore by process of many.


⚑ Government Tricks. Natural Law, Natural Man, Natural Rights. The TRUTH Shall Set You FREE.

You were born a living soul with flesh and blood, with the responsibility to respect other life and treat your fellow man with love and kindness, and with a life-spirit provided by the Creator. Your unalienable rights are for life, liberty and property, and to respect those rights of other human beings on this planet, our home.

In an attempt to create a safe society, men elected Governments to protect and uphold your unalienable rights and your responsibilities to the Creator and your fellow man. After a while, Governments became corrupt and now we have to ask: How could Governments and other "regulatory bodies" possibly make you follow their rules and be subservient to them since your true allegiance is to your Creator? How can you serve two masters - your creator and your Government? The answer is that you cannot serve two masters, therefore the Government had to create a system that tricks you into thinking you must serve them, where in fact, Governments must serve us, the people.

One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an "artificial-person / corporation" who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you.


But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also have provided recognition in law for another legal entity called a "natural-person" (simply meaning a human-being in the law) with which most of your fundamental rights are still intact. So when you interact with the law, you may be represented as an artificial or natural person - you choose.

This concept of an "artificial-person", a legally obligated entity, that appears to be you, but in fact is not you, is a little difficult to grasp at first.

Once the Government creates an "artificial-person" that simulates you (i.e. appears to be the same as you from your point of view), but is actually a contrivance of government laws and regulations -- then they've got you, so to speak. And if you fill out paperwork and sign documents as if you were this artificial-person then they can make you totally subservient to all their rules and regulations:

    Make you believe you are obligated to pay taxes,
    Make you believe that you have to obtain a driver's licence,
    Make you believe that you have to work as an Employee.

Natural vs. Artificial:


There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person".

A natural-person is defined as "A human being that has the capacity for rights and duties". Note that the word capacity means the ability, but not the obligation for rights and duties.

An artificial-person is defined as "A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach - e.g. a body corporate". Sometimes an artificial-person may be referred to as a CORPORATION, which is not always the same as an Incorporated Company. These subtle re-definitions are made in Statutes whenever the Government wants to change the meaning of the word.

There are many different types of artificial-persons, each with different duties. Here are a few different types of artificial-persons:
Taxpayer, Resident, Driver, Voter, Citizen, Homeowner, Officer.

Whenever you read any Law or Statute, you must be sure to check the meaning of the word "person" as it applies to that particular law.

In order to implement 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 or gained by its citizens.

The technique used by the Government was to create an artificial-person (referred to herein as a CORPORATION for emphasis) 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 its creator and the CORPORATION must obey its creator.

So for every John Doe human-being in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE CORPORATION. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and COMPANIES. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person.

As a CORPORATION needs a business number, in order to do business, the Government assigns a unique business number to each JOHN DOE it creates. Such a business number is called the S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number a.k.a. Social Insurance Number). The creator (Master) can then track all activities of the Slave and claim ownership on all property and income of the Slave.

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 is the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement 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.

Here is a quotation from "Memorandum on Law of the Name", which summarizes the so-called Name Game used by the courts (the All-Caps NAME is a legal-fiction: something presumed by law to be true until said presumption is rebutted and the truth is brought forward):

'It is clear that the existance of a NAME written as all-caps is a necessity-created legal-fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised, and the supporting particulares are outlined in this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement - correction - for all parties of an action of purported law. However, the current "courts" cannot correct this since they are all based upon presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic NAMES. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps NAME and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all life on this planet in a vice grip for millenia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point, the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labours, the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.'

Government Tricks:

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 presume 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 only two "persons" in law, a human being, and everything else:
    A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

    An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Comment from DetaxCanada: 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 of  “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, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

    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 may attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Comment from DetaxCanada: “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, …”

Alternative expressions for a "natural-person" are "real-person", "human-person", or "human-being". Since governments have recently become paranoid about the use of the term "natural-person" perhaps it is better to use the terms "human-person" or "human-being" instead. Other terms like "private-person" could be misleading because a "private legal entity" (such as a private corporation versus a public corporation) may be called a private-person, which should not be mistaken with a natural-person, human-person, or human-being. The trick is to get you to believe that "private" means "human", which is not necessarily true.

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 presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been 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 follows:

From the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

Third Trick:

The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein.

Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject means objects;

Effect:
1. means implies a substitution of words.
2. means creates a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
4. the objects need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.

Example from the Bank Act:

    "person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act:

    Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person.

Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject includes players;
Effect:

    1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject.
    2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject.
    3. the subject needs to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective.
    6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject.
    7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Income Tax Act:

    "employee" includes officer;
    "corporation" includes an incorporated company;
    "insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy;

    "taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;
    "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;

Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:

    An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.

    An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.

    A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.

    A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).

    A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.

Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:

    Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;

    Effect:

    1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
    2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
    3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
    4. the players need to be pre-defined.
    5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
    6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
    7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
    8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
    9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Interpretation Act:

    "province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;

Interpretation of the above Example from the Interpretation Act:

    Any pre-existing definition for "province" is substituted with "a province of Canada", and any of the players (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) may play the role of a province, but not vice versa. For example, any province may not play the role of Nunavut.

The use of the word includes 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. Now that includes is no longer believed to be restrictive, you have to look eslewhere in the statutes to find out where your rights, as a natural person, are preserved. Your rights will be upheld somewhere, you just have to find out where.


Fourth Trick:

The fourth 'trick' is directly attributable to a defect in the English language in respect of the verb 'to be'. In the English language there are many different meanings of the verb 'to be' and the reader/listener may misinterpret the intended (or 'trick') meaning and thereby draw the wrong conclusion from its use.

The two different and distinct meanings of the verb 'to be' which concern us are: the one meaning which relates to the essence of the subject (such as the table is made of wood; he is strong) and the other meaning which relates to a temporary location or position (such as the table is over there; he is a swimmer).

To be succinct, the two relevant meanings of interest, in this 'trick', may be summarized by the following simple definition:

    to be, means 'to have the essence of, to exist or live' (in the sense of essence), or 'to occupy a place or position' (in the sense of location or position).

By the way, the noun 'essence' requires the helper verb 'to have'. Be careful with 'exist' because an artificial person can 'exist' on a piece of paper somewhere in a file, but an artifical person cannot exist as 'living'.

Now to utilize the Fourth Trick associated with 'to be', a judge may make a ruling as follows:

    "a natural person is a taxpayer", or "a natural person is a driver"

which immediately translates into the valid conclusion, with regard to occupying a position (because someone has to do the paperwork), that:

    "a natural person occupies the position of a taxpayer"

However, a judge cannot make a ruling that:

    'a natural person has the essence of a taxpayer'
    'a natural person lives as a taxpayer'

because human rights are immediately violated and slavery woud be condoned by the judge.


The conclusion, in respect of the Fourth Trick, is to be careful when reading the word "is" and check for 'essence' or 'location'. What you think you read may not be in fact what you really read.

You can very quickly get clarification by asking: "When you say is, do you mean occupies a position, or do you mean has the essence of (lives as)?" With this question you will immediately expose any 'trick' which is being utilized.

Spanish is one of the few languages which has maintained a distinction by having two separate verbs; the verb 'ser', derived from the Latin 'esse' (English 'essence'), is used 'to have essence'; and the verb 'estar', derived from the Latin 'stare' (English 'state'), is used for a 'temporary location or position'.


Fifth Trick:

The fifth 'trick' is the use of the word 'you' to create joinder between the one who speaks, and the artificial-person.

Achilles’ Heel, is “You”
Who “you” are, is no longer t
he question. The question is,
who “IS” you. The word “you”
gets more people into trouble than any othe
r word currently utiliz
ed within our legal and
financial systems. 
It is virtually impossible to fully explain
the proper grammatical usage of the word “you”,
insofar as proper Englis
h is concerned.  

Wikipedia: You (stressed 0/ˈjuː/; unstressed /jə/) is the second-personpersonal pronoun in Modern English. Ye was the original nominative form; the oblique/objective form is you(functioning originally as both accusative and dative), and the possessive is your
 or yours.

YourDictionary.com:you (yo̵̅o̅) pronounpl.you1.  the person to whom one is speaking or writing: personal pronoun in the second person (sing. & pl.): you is the nominative and objective form (sing. & pl.), yours the possessive (sing. & pl.), and yourself
(sing.) and yourselves (pl.) the reflexive and intensive; your is the possessive pronominal adjective  2.  any person: equivalent in sense to indefinite one: you can never be sure!

Note: Though you is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in addressing a single person, yet properly always with a plural verb. (No confusion here!) Loosely, the word “you” is a pronoun, that
cannot be properly grammatically used according to English language rules. When spoken, “you” is commonly heard by everyone present, as if it were being addressed to each of them, individually, in a singular sense. We erroneously hear a si
ngular inclination of the properly plural expression, as in one speaking to a group and saying; “I’m happy to share this with you.a”

Properly, “you” is indeed “plural”, yet the word “you” is often spoken as if it were in reference to a singular man or woman. In such instances, the word “you” induces a natural inclination for everyone in an audience to hear it as being addressed singularly to
a specific individual within that audience, particularly if the word “you” follows an antecedent noun; as in one speaking to that same group, and saying; “Yes George, I’m happy to share this with you.” In “law”, this word “you”, is properly
utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when addressing the singular mind(or the single party with volition)within the plural-nature-construct of a PERSON. The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity
 that IS that PERSON. In this sense, addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper use of the word “you”, as anyone could imagine. 


Sixth Trick:

The sixth 'trick' is the use of the Birth Certificate to create a bunch of legal entities with NAMEs derived from the Birth Certificate, and to get you to agree that you are the same as the NAME on the Birth Certificate.

Unraveling a little of the TRUTH that shall help to set you Free:
You are a natural being, born of natural parents. Your parents "gave" you a
natural   name,   then   they   unwittingly   "granted"   by   means   of   commercial
exchange  (a legal  contract),
  a duplicate  version of that  same  name  to the province.
This duplicate “name” was also created by your parents, thus it was
their private property, to do with as they desired.
Subsequently, because they did not know of exactly what they had done, and
because therefore they were unable to properly explain to you what they had done (because much of what they had done was induced upon them by trickery)
,you unwittingly pretended to be  that
 duplicate name, or pretended that you
could be identified by that duplicate name, every time you allowed yourself to
be identified by it, and or every time you effectively operated as it, by acting or
behaving as if you were it, or could be identified by it.

Your copy of the birth certificate is not a contract, it is merely a copy of areceipt, evidencing the irrevocable gift  (grant)  of THEIR name made by yourparents. They created/made that duplicate name, thus they had the right togrant it to whoever, or whatever "state" they desired. You do not qualify to
hold an original receipt, because you were not a party to the original contract,nor did you make the original grant – they did. 

They willingly made a legal transaction and reversing any legal transaction issubject to statute limitations – in other words, just because I have a receipt formy car, does not entitle me to go back to the dealer after 30 years and say, “I
made  a mistake, here is your car, give me my money back.” Such a notion surelyis even less realistic, if I were thinking of trying to undo a contract that I wasnot even a party to

Likewise with the name. In order to even attempt to reverse that apparentmistaken transaction, your parents (and only your parents – not you) would haveto assemble evidence that they have the ability to return all previously claimedbenefits   –   benefits   they   arguably   “accepted”,   thus   ratifying   the   subject
contract, but even if they could prove what those benefits were  (which wedoubt), and then if they could establish capacity to return them, the other sideis not under any obligation to accept a return of those benefits that have beenpaid in good faith, nor are they obligated to return that which they have legallypurchased and paid for in good faith, – the duplicate corporate name.

Alternatively, your parents would have to prove that they had been tricked, orfraudulently induced into exchanging their duplicate artificial name for thealleged state benefits. The problem with this approach is simple.  The duplicate