View Full Version : Person contains a corporation, collection of infants, etc.

07-14-14, 02:21 AM
“include v. [with obj.] 1 comprise or contain as part of a whole: the price includes dinner, bed, and breakfast | other changes included the abolition of the death penalty. 2 make part of a whole or set: we have included some hints for beginners in this section.
<USAGE> Include has a broader meaning than comprise. In the sentence the accommodation comprises 2 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and living room, the word comprise implies that there is no accommodation other than that listed. Include can be used in this way too, but it is also used in a non-restrictive way, implying that there may be other things not specifically mentioned that are part of the same category, as in the price includes a special welcome pack.”- Stevenson, Angus (2010-07-23). Oxford Dictionary of English (Kindle Locations 195906-195909). Oxford University Press - A. Kindle Edition

The word “include” is used in the sentence to communicate the components of the object. It can be expansive or restrictive. It depends on the usages. If you look up the word “include” in the layman and the legal dictionary, the word “include” share the same definition.

Many sovereign citizens believe that the word “include” means only what is mentioned because of the Latin Maxim of what is included is excluded. They also think the word “include” means a word of definition; “is” or “mean.” That is incorrect.

The word “include” is used in sentences to communicate the components or parts of a package, container, or object.
If the word “include” is used in the restrictive term, it is restricted to the components mentioned. For example, an apple includes stem, fruit body, skin, and seeds. This is a restrictive use of the word “include.” Remember, the apple doesn’t mean seed, steam, fruit body, or skin.
The word include can be used in expansive terms.

For example, “Canada includes Ontario and the Hudson Bay.” The statutes define Canada having the component of the province of Ontario and Hudson Bay. The statute can applies to a province or body of water not mentioned in the sentence like British Columbia.

Why use the word “include” in legal writing? The author uses “include” to spell out the component to avoid dispute. On a later date, someone cannot easily dispute that Hudson Bay is not part of Canada because the “Hudson bay” is mentioned as a component of Canada.

The statutes CANNOT be applied to something outside of the item mentioned before the word include in the sentence. The statutes state that this law applies to Canada. It cannot apply outside the subject Canada. SO the statute cannot apply to Minnesota because Minnesota is not a component of Canada.

The statute cannot apply to the individual components in the sentence but the entire Canada.When they read the “person”, they are thinking that they are a component rather than the object. They see the word “corporation” and thinking that a live man can also be a component that is not mentioned.

In law, the components mentioned must be in similar to the items not mentioned. The law will be vague if the law applied to a component not similar in nature. For example, the statutes apply to Marijuana plants. The law defines Marijuana plant to include the THC bud, and leaves. The law can be applied to marijuana stem because they are understand to be part of the plant and similar in nature to the bud in the THC content. The statutes that applies to marijuana cannot apply to coca leaves because it doesn’t share characteristic of THC content.
The statutes is applied on the “Person” as a whole and not the individual components or parts. Do you have an organ called a board of director? Do you have a joint-stock association inside of you?

“ § 37. Person. The term person includes a corporation and a joint-stock association. When used to designate a party whose property may be the subject of any offense, the term person also includes the state, or any other state, government or country which may lawfully own property in the state.”- Laws of New York GCN Article 2
“7. “Person” means a human being, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality.”- Laws of New York PEN Part 1 Title A Article 10

Means is a word of substitution. The word person can be substituted for human being, corporation, etc. In order to be a person in NY statutes, the person must contains the component of a corporation and joint-stock association. Human being is defined in the 1 USC 8 as every infant of the homo sapiens species. The word “every” means collection. If you are a human being, then you must contains a collection of infants.

You don’t have to be an infant to be a component of the human being. You must have characteristics of an infant to be a component of the human being. Remember, the components not mentioned must be similar in nature. If you are a component of the human being and the judge sentence human being to jail, you must go to jail with the collection of infants.

The person can means a human being. The human being must have the component of a corporation and joint-stock association. How can you be the person? Do you have an organ in your body called a corporation and join-stock association?

Person is a legal fiction. It is like an estate. It contains things.

Person=Human being Human being>corporation and joint stock company

David Merrill
07-14-14, 09:09 AM
I used that construction with marginal success for the longest time.

Where does IT reside? In other words a PERSON is a trust construction = an agreement. The all upper case name on the PERSON, the name of IT is the name of a social compact. If IT serves you for it to exist; primarily the example as a driver license then have a full understanding of how the three components of my Lesson Plan work in conjunction:

1) True identity
2) Record forming
3) Redeeming lawful money

I do not insist on my mental model about PERSON but you might care to try it on for size and see how it functions. When you understand yourself as the Man, regenerate and living, unless you are going to hunt and grow - these violent actions requiring you make a claim to land and assets thereon you are contracting that violence out to the butcher and farmer. You need to war to be in the world, in other words. Become crafty in commerce - that is to say become educated and good at business and you can manage all this violence in a civilized fashion, through contracting.

Therefore it is wise to merge my Lesson Plan with good foundation of trust law.

07-14-14, 09:30 PM
Include can mean whatever the legislature or author decides they want it to mean within the context of that which is written.

07-16-14, 09:29 AM
Include can mean whatever the legislature or author decides they want it to mean within the context of that which is written.

Include is expansive. The author uses include to define the component so there is no dispute. Here is an example.

"My car includes muffler."

The author want you to know the car has muffler as a component. There are cars that don't have mufflers. There could be a dispute whether or not the car has muffler. To clarify it, the author uses include.

"The person means a human being, or corporation." Mean is substitution. When you see person, it can apply to a human being or a corporation.

The rules of construction that state that a "person include a corporation." The human being has a corporation inside or owns the corporation totally. 1 USC 8 state that the word "human being" and "individual" is every infant of the homo sapiens species. Where the infants in your person?

David Merrill
07-16-14, 09:35 AM
Please try to use correct grammar and spelling. I cannot follow your parsing out definitions because you have typos and sentences that do not make sense to me.

07-19-14, 02:44 PM
Terms defined by the legislatures are creations of the legislature. This is apparent when they redefine a word for a few specific sections of statute or code. I am a man, one of the people. Since the people created government, the people and any aspect of the people, cannot be defined or diminished by the legislature. It is simply against the laws of nature that a creation can define its creator. So, IMO, the definitions within code do not concern me or my rights.