Natural vs. Artificial:



There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person". See Government Tricks for more details.



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, etc.



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 man'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 man & woman 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 man or woman 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. See Capitalization.



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 began as a Birth Certificate number, then later on is accompanied by a 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 the same as 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.'

Legal Foundations for Artificial Persons:



Here are some citations from older case-law that discusses how Artificial Persons are only subject to man-made artificial statutes: ' Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons . The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government , as well as any law , agency , aspect , court , etc. thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them ." [underline and bold emphasis added] S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54).' and ... ' That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent ." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.' and ... ' The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 .'

We recently received a copy of a letter from one of our readers (see letter) sent to the International Bar Association, and to date, there has been no reply.



Natural Persons when defined in the Income Tax Act of Canada:



The Income Tax Act now includes the use of the term "natural person" in such a manner that it can only be a role or capacity in which a man or woman acts, before the law. Just look at these quotes from the ITA and let your head spin where they seem to imply that a natural person is the same as a corporation: Definitions 94. (1): "exempt amount" in respect of a trust's particular taxation year means an amount that is (c) paid [...] by the trust directly to a beneficiary [...] under the trust if

(i) the beneficiary is a natural person none of whose interests as a beneficiary under the trust was ever acquired for consideration, Definitions 94. (1): "exempt foreign trust" at a particular time means (f) a non-resident trust if (ii) throughout the trust's taxation year that includes the particular time (B) the trust is maintained for the benefit of natural persons the majority of whom are non-resident, and (g) a non-resident trust (other than a prescribed trust or a trust described in paragraph (a.1) of the definition "trust" in subsection 108(1)) that throughout the particular period that began when it was created and ends at the particular time (ii) has been operated exclusively for the purpose of administering or providing superannuation or pension benefits that are primarily in respect of services rendered in the particular country by natural persons who were non-resident at the time those services were rendered; Definitions 95. (1): "entity" includes an association, a corporation, a fund, a natural person, a joint venture, an organization, a partnership, a syndicate and a trust; [See that "includes" must be restrictive in the list above, otherwise we would have to include the normal definition of "entity", bringing in aliens from outer space] Definitions 118.04. (1): (2) For the purposes of this section, (a) a qualifying expenditure of an individual includes an outlay or expense made or incurred by a co-operative housing corporation, a condominium corporation (or, for civil law, a syndicate of co-owners) or a similar entity (in this paragraph referred to as the "corporation"), in respect of a property that is owned, administered or managed by that corporation, and that includes an eligible dwelling of the individual, to the extent of the individual's share of that outlay or expense, if (i) the outlay or expense would be a qualifying expenditure of the corporation if the corporation were a natural person and the property were an eligible dwelling of that natural person, and (b) a qualifying expenditure of an individual includes an outlay or expense made or incurred by a trust, in respect of a property owned by the trust that includes an eligible dwelling of the individual, to the extent of the share of that outlay or expense that is reasonably attributable to the individual, having regard to the amount of the outlays or expenses made or incurred in respect of the eligible dwelling of the individual (including, for this purpose, common areas relevant to more than one eligible dwelling), if (i) the outlay or expense would be a qualifying expenditure of the trust if the trust were a natural person and the property were an eligible dwelling of that natural person, and [This one is a real "doozie". Now we have "if the corporation were a human being" NP, and "if the trust were a human being" NP, putting us right back into their fiction. They can only lie for so long before their stupidity gets them.]

Response to a Reader:



The following is a response which I sent to a Reader (of the web-site) who was asking about legal persons. I think it provides some useful information: Begin Quote Both NP and AP are called "legal persons". When a human acts within the Statute law, as a natural person, he is subject to those laws which apply to the NP. The human's acting in the capacity of a natural person must be by agreement, consent, or contract, as you have indicated. Just as an "artificial person" is a "legal person", so is a "natural person" a "legal person". In fact, any "person" is a "legal person" because when the word "person" is used in law, it means a "legal person". Laws are created by man to have effect on these "legal persons". There must be a mechanism for a human to be subject to some of man's laws (if he agrees) so the law has created two "legal persons", one is called "natural" and the other is called "artificial" (in the law). No man has dominion over another man, therefore Man's law cannot have jurisdiction over any man, except by agreement. A statute cannot have jurisdiction over a man unless he agrees to be so ruled (by consent or accepting a benefit from the state). I do not agree with your casual use of the word "natural person" from old dictionaries. Now, all "persons" are subject to man-made laws, so you see that it is not safe to use the word "person" any more, even in casual conversation, because of the confusion it creates. Don't get confused with the expression "natural law" (the law of nature) and "natural person" (a creation in man's laws and dictionaries). The adjective "natural" carries entirely different meanings in each case. I think the confusion comes when we introduce Statute laws. Your references are from an older dictionary, and have been modified in later dictionaries. The more recently accepted idea is that any "person", natural or artificial, is a "legal person" within the Statutes. For example, the Bank Act (a statute) refers to a natural person. Furthermore, the Interpretation Act defines "person" as follows: "person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation" and adjectives such as natural, artificial, fake, legal, are all "expressions descriptive of a person", which means that, unless defined otherwise, the Interpretation Act defines "natural person", "artificial person", "legal person", "fake person", etc, all as corporations. You see how twisted these people are when the pull stunts like "any word or expression descriptive of a person". Any use of the word "person" puts us into man's legal system, because no man or woman is the same as a "person". Men and women are living souls occupying a human body for a time. They are not "persons" of any form. "Person" in the legal sense only refers to "bodies" in law, either human or fake, to be governed by the laws. To govern humans, the term "natural person" is used in the laws to distinguish humans from all other legal entities. Outside the law, "persons" do not exist, only men and women exist. In the old days, we used to be able to refer to a man or woman as a "person" however such slack use of the language no longer is safe as a result of the perversion of the laws and the re-definition of words made by those wishing to control others (in other words, your basic childhood "bully" who has moved himself into a position of power and influence over others). In an attempt to seduce all people into believing that they are subject to Statute Law, there is much half-truth information put forward to add to the confusion. The changing definitions for NP and AP within dictionaries and statures are cases in point. The dictionaries are updated to enforce the current mind-set of the state and the legal profession. As a case in point, the head of the Law Faculty at a Canadian University has stated (via an email to me) that all human beings (men and women) are slaves to the state. That is the belief and doctrine of the Law Faculty at University. This is what is being taught in school without any critical thinking from the students to rebuke such rubbish. Men and women are outside Statute Law unless they contract to be within them. Then, those humans who agree to be bound by Statute Law are only involved when reference is made to a natural person (a human within those laws). The other non-humans are artificial persons (sometimes called "fake persons" by judges). End Quote

Old English Quotation:



The following are Excerpts from Chapter XVI - Of PERSONS, AUTHORS, and things Personated from Leviathan, 1651 A.D., by Thomas Hobbes:

'A person, is he, whose words or action are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.'



'When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person: And when they are considered as representing the words and action of an other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.'



'Of Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the AUTHOR.'



'And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or the Representer, not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill.'



'An Idol, or meer Figment of the brain, may be Personated; as were the Gods of Heathen; which by such Officers as the State appointed, were Personated, and held Possessions, and other Goods, and Rights, which men from time to time dedicated, and consecrated unto them. But Idols cannot be Authors: for an Idol is nothing.'



'Of Authors there be two sorts. The first is simply so called; which I have before defined be him, that owneth the Action of another simply. The second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another conditionally; that is to say, he undertaketh to do it, if the other doth it not, at, or before a certain time. And these Authors conditionall, are generally called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and Sponsores; and particularly for Debt, Proedes; and for Appearance before Judge, or Magistrate, Vades.'



"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

