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

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

elimination and simple deduction, then be limited to being an artificial creation,or at best, an actual paper creation, that exists on paper as a corporate entityonly. Here   is   where   mistake   number   two   originates.   Because   of   your   parents'
misunderstanding of what they had done, you also misunderstood their actions.You also mistakenly believed that the duplicate name they sold to the state,was actually somehow still “your” name.

Thus by this mistake of yours, you have committed two serious offenses. Firstyou unwittingly dishonored your parents by abandoning that natural name thatthey gave you at birth. Second, you unwittingly, commenced behaving “as if”you were that duplicate artificial corporate name that belongs to someone
else. You “applied”  (also known as   asked, begged, pleaded, requested, etc.)  for a socialinsurance number, which effectively is asking permission to “operate”  theirregistered name for commercial purposes. Then you “applied” for various forms

of permissions, licenses and other identity documents, all again confirming yourintent to carry out or conduct certain activity “in” their registered name; andagreeing to “act”, “as” their registered name, and  confirming your desire to be recognized ”as”, or identified “as” their registered name, and to accept all legaland   financial   obligations   for   and   on   behalf   of,   and   as   if   you   were,  theirregistered name.


Thus by mistakenly acting as if you were that name that belongs to the state(actually the Bar Association via the banks, but we will explain this later), youunwittingly forfeited by your own apparent self- determination,  those gifts of

your natural birthright, your inheritance, the value of your productivity, andeven your natural name, to the benefit of the owner of that artificial duplicatename.So you do not need, to "identify" with that name. For example, I am me, here I am, this is who you see, and who you see is how  youidentify me - I cannotidentify me to you - you must do that either by yourself, or for yourself with theaid of others (explained later).We have all been tricked into doing everything in reverse. When you see a duck,
you identify it as a duck, by how it appears to YOU, not by how it appears toitself. The duck, like any individual,  inherently knows who or what it is, it has noneed   to   identify   itself   to   itself.   "Identity",   is   truly   only   that   inherent
comprehension which is achieved in and by the mind of the party making theidentification of something, or someone, outside of him or herself.

"I am who I am", and I stand before you as I am, therefore you are the only onethat can identify me, to you. Because YOU, see me, just as you see a duck, and
are therefore able to identify “it”, or “me”, because YOU, see it or me. Now youmay   be   able   to   do   this   with   knowledge   or   familiarity   of   me,   or   with   theknowledge that comes from two witnesses that are able to point to me with a certain   degree   of   familiarity,   but   it   is   only   YOU,   that   can   accept   youridentification of me, whether made entirely by yourself, or with the help ofthose witnesses. 

However, if you ask me to identify myself, you are mistaken in how identityworks. This is why in "law", identity of a perpetrator, is accomplished by askingwitnesses to "point" out the party, not to "name" the party. If I claim to be a
name, then it is I that am mistaken, because I cannot be a name, I can only beme. Likewise a witness cannot be relied upon to have seen or known a "name",anymore than they could be asked to point out a name in a crowd of people.Furthermore, neither you nor I have the power or the authority to un-grant, or to un-give, that which was given away by our parents - the name - the name wehave mistakenly pretended to still have, or to still hold claim to, or to still becalled, or claim to still “be”. Therefore, if I am to allow myself to be identified truly as the me that I am, then I must stop allowing myself to be identified as, orby that name which is not even mine.I must distance myself from that mistake and terminate any association with it.

That   artificial   duplicate   corporate   name   is   very   legally   real,   and   it   is   a
permanently  fatal   error,  inasmuch   as  we   are   actually   defrauding   ourselveswhen we pretend we can be identified by it, or even by any reference to it. I,like you, can only be identified by another party, or by witness(es)
  that canstipulate that I, or you, are the individual man or woman that he or she isidentifying.

The office of vital statistics does not "record" your name, like the priests orpastors formerly did in the local church Bibles. They unwittingly administer a"transaction", crafted by lawyers working under the guise and direction ofclever bank owners, resulting in a commercial exchange, or, a grant of a name,
in   consideration   of   non-specific   benefits,   perhaps   including   the   illusion   ofhaving the name officially recorded for them.This exchange then generates what in law is referred to as the titled ownershipof all equitable and legal rights, title and interest in that
name, and transfersthose rights  to the province in right of her majesty, thus everything anyone,including   you   or   I   may   do,   or   may   produce   in  that  name,   belongs   to   theprovince, in right of her majesty.

So,   the   statement   of   live   birth   was   only   an   instrument   giving   rise   to   an agreement of purchase and sale of a thing called a “name”, and specified as aparticular corporate name by the acknowledged spelling.

The birth certificate ismerely   an   after-issue   receipt.   That   certified   copy   is   held   by   a   third   party, evidencing that the original sale was consummated. That sale had absolutelynothing at all to do with any assets other than the specific artificial “name” - thesale did not include any ownership or entitlement to birthrights
or inheritances, regardless of who holds the duplicate receipt (BC).

We have forgotten our first law. In exercising our own self-determination, wehave given away our natural rights, in favor of the artificial rights associatedwith the artificial duplicate name, because we have chosen to pretend to bethat artificial “duplicate” name. We are not even pretending to be an artificial “person”, merely an artificial “name” (which pretense in itself entirely creates theperson)!Think of the ducks. The ducks are born free with their inheritance, so are we. We   have   also   chosen   with   some   more   unwitting   deliberation,   to   enable   a government of ourselves, ostensibly by ourselves, to have authority to delegateauthority over us, and to have authority over all of our natural resources.  Our government is not holding "our" names - they are holding "their" names,that formerly belonged to your parents, never to you, so never was yours.
They have legal title to a legal fiction (corporate) name - that is not you, nor was it, oris it your name - it is very simply just another "corporation" registered in thegovernment's name. You are still a man or a woman that may be recognized
by a name called John or Mary, but that name you are recognized by, IS associatedwith you, inasmuch as you respond to it, and others that know you, know thatyou respond to it. It just happens to look and sound the same, but it is vastlydifferent than the legal name that is owned by the government as proxy for theBar Association via the banks.

There is one natural you, and you are entitled to your one true natural name,just like there is one natural Creator, and He declares that His natural name isYahweh. Now someone else could elect to call themselves Yahweh, but thatdoes not make that someone else into the One Creator. Nor does calling a
"legal person" by your name, make that legal person into you. Only you can"act", or pretend to be that  legal person, regardless of what  "name" it isassociated with, or what name you are called by. Thus it is not a matter of who owns or claims to own the legal name, that is
obvious - that party which contractually purchased it for good and valuableconsideration from your parents, is in fact and in deed, the legal owner, andalways will be. That does not give them as owner of that name any rights, titleor   interest   in   you   the   natural   man   or   woman,   or   in   your   inheritance   or

birthright,  or   in  the  natural   name   you  use,  because   neither   you,  nor   yourbirthrights, nor inheritance, nor your natural name, were ever a part of thattransaction between your parents and our government. It  (the transaction)
  simply happens to have created a convenient manner bywhich you were subsequently tricked by the lawyers via their puppet bankstersinto acting as if you were THAT legal name, instead of simply being you withyour natural name, thus resulting in you unwittingly giving the owner of that
5 corporate name, all of your productivity, all of your inheritance and all of yourbirthright - at least so long as you continue to pretend to be "their" name,which pretense precludes you from actually being you.

The "person" is a creation of YOU - created BY you, when and if, and only whenand if you "act" as if you are their artificial, duplicate, corporate name. Seeingthat an artificial name cannot be real in the sense that such may not possess its
own conscience or ability of volition  (like any corporation), neither can theindividual that is “acting” as if he or she were “it”, be completely real either,only considered to be an "actor", a.k.a., a "person" - the key is to comprehend
that we must stop acting "as if" we were "their" name, because that behaviorcreates their “person”. We terminate the person by stopping all activity in"their" name. Doing so does not preclude us from actually being ourselves and operating in

our "own" name, even if our own name is identical to their contractually ownedversion of it. When we know the difference, we can act accordingly - the questwill   arise   from   getting   them   -   the   rest   of   us,   who   are   us,   acting   as   our government administrators, to comprehend the difference. We do not need to fight to let them retain what they have legally bought andpaid for, and we certainly do not need or want to fight to take it away fromthem. In truth, we do not want anything at all to do with "their" name, which
never was ours anyway, all we really want, is to stop our mistaken behavior,which has been that we have until now, acted "as if" we were that name, whenin fact we were NOT "THAT" name, neither are we "OUR" name, we are simplyus. You, are you, and you are an individual human being
(man or woman) calledby your natural name given to you by your natural parents, and by coincidence,your parents also sold a completely separate duplicate "name" - somethingthey simply made up and committed to a piece of paper, to the state.