from Eldon Warman. [ http://www.detaxcanada.org ]
Upon reviewing the
info you have on the webpage,
I would like to make
some suggested changes to the info you have there. As you may be aware, the Porisky program has gone extremely sour for Eva Sydel and a couple of others. Therefore, for the safety and
security of others who would follow that program advice, I offer these
observations of your text content. I have put it into a Word text document, with
I suggested changes noted as comments. [Editor's Note: said comments are now highlighted in yellow.]
The governments can be very "tricky" in their
wording of things. Something to make yourself aware of and
wise to very quickly if you want to gain the upper hand. Armed with the
information here, all American visitors are challenged to search their own laws
and see how much of the data provided here applies to them in their country -
as well as all other western nations. Only by searching out the truth of the
laws and your original rights and freedoms yourselves, will you be empowered to
protect your 'natural person' as a human-being.
Here's 4 tricks outlined below:
The first "trick" of the government is the re-definition of certain
critical words in each Statute (Act). They(the government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning
of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in
their favour. Two key words that are re-defined in
almost every statute are the words "person" and
"individual". There are at least two "person" in law:
A 'natural-person' is a man or woman, created by God.
An 'artificial-person' is a corporation, created by Man.
Comment: Both types of
“person” are legal fictions. A natural person is a human in the false or
fictional status of slave crewmember on a make-believe ship called a “body politic”.
An “artificial person” is a make-believe ship called a body corporate or
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
as a captain of a vessel in ‘dry dock’ – he and his vessel being subservient to
the vessel owner,
The natural status of an (adult) human is
“free will”, and thus sovereign over his own human body.
control is equivalent to some form of “piracy” - call it what you may.
Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law
Dictionary, 3rd edition:
natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for
rights and duties.
artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being,
recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties my be attached - e.g. a body corporate.
You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity"(ie ability) for rights and duties, but not necassarily the obligation. The artificial-person has
rights and duties that may be attached (ie assigned) by laws.
Comment) “Capacity for” is
not the same as “Having” rights and duties. The only ‘duties’ a free-will
has are those found in the negative and positive form of the Golden Rule – Do (or,
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, …”
The second "trick" of the government is to use the Interpretation Act
to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a
particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary
meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing
that they may have been re-defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these
words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for
the two most important words still apply, either from the interpretation Act,
or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically they are defined as follow:
from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means a natural-person.
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
PERSON means a corporation(an artificial-person).
from the Income Tax Act we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means an artificial person.
PERSON means an artificial person (amongst other
In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how INDIVIDUAL and PERSON are
used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.
Comment) The definition of
“individual” in the Income Tax Act says:
“ "individual" means a person other than a corporation; ”
The only other “person” besides the corporate
person (artificial person) is the “natural person”.
The third "trick" of the government is to use the word
"includes" in definitions instead of using the word
"means". They do this in some critical definitions that they want you
to mis-interpret. If they used "means"
instead of "includes" then their deception would be exposed, but by
using "includes" they rely upon the reader to assume that
"includes" expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts
the definition in the same manner that "means" restricts the
Here is a "means" definition of the word "person" from the
PERSON "means" a natural person, an entity or a personal
Here is an 'includes' definition of the word "person" from the
PERSON, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'includes' a
To expose their deception, substitute the word 'means' and you have PERSON, or
any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'means' a corporation.(viz-artifitial-person)
Both "means" & "includes" are restrictive in scope
because they only encompass a part of the whole. Typically they are used in the
person 'means' A or B or C (and nothing else)
person 'includes' A and B and C(and nothing else)
There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of "includes":
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius... The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
The definition of the word "include" is key to understanding your
potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the
government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you
know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.
The fourth "trick" of the government is to modify how the word
"includes" is used in order to make an EXPANSION in the definition
when such expansion is required. This "trick" helps add confusion to
the use of "includes" convincing the readers that "includes"
is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:
includes, without limitation
the expansive definitions usually take the following form:
PERSON means A or B or C and includes D.
Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for
"include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next
'source' for the definitions. From Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th edition, here is the definition for the word
"include": include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure,
take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise,
comprehend, embrace, involve.
including. may, according to
context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of 'and' or 'in addition
to', or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general
words theretofore used.
inclose. To surround; to
encompass; to bound; fence; or hem in, on all sides.
It is stated in the above definition that the verb INCLUDE only has limited
scope. On the other hand the participle, INCLUDING (but
not limited to) enlarges the scope. When used in a definition, INCLUDE does not
expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to confuse because we
naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume INCLUDE means
to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word.
Our assumptions fail us in this case. From now on, when you see the word
INCLUDES, mentally substitute the word MEANS and you will not be
"tricked" by this definition anymore.
Comment) Regarding Item 3
& 4: There have been a lot of US cases where this has been the argument,
and the judges all come back with the fact that the term has to be taken in
context, and that if others are mentioned within The text, then the meaning
means “also includes”, or “includes but not limited to”.
that argument has always failed.
suggest the following replacement for Articles 3 & 4:
primary trap laid by the legal world in their parliamentary statutes and court
system is by the “name game”. When one was born, one’s parents were coerced
into “registering” the live birth with
(originally the county, and later in Provincial Vital
Statistics) . Register comes from the Latin, Regis,
(the King or Queen). Thus, the act of registering is the
‘offering up” of the child to the King. Upon that form, one finds a space for
“given names” and one for the family name, called the “surname”. Now, look up
the definition of “sur” in any dictionary, and you
will find that it means “over, above, superior,
Historically, a “family” name was a referential name (inferior to) for the “given” names.
name with a surname attached is a fiction, a creation and intellectual property
the name that is imprinted on the birth certificate, a copy of which you get
when you order that document from Vital Statistics and pay the fee. If it were
YOUR birth certificate, you wouldn’t have to pay for the copy, and you would be
able to redeem the original.
birth certificate is a negotiable instrument sold to the international bankers
as offered collateral
(the future labour of the associated human body) in the
national bankruptcy. Since the named entity
the birth certificate is thus a DEBTOR, the name is changed to an “all caps”
spelling as a code
legal purposes. It is not the “all caps” spelling that indicates the fictional
entity/strawman - it is the family name being made a
insurance calculations on odds of longevity, the Crown estimates an amount of
projected labour the individual human may have, and bestows a credit upon that
particular surname with referential given names, and then proceeds to use those
credits for government borrowing from the
International bankers. All “currency” is “credits”. There is no real money -
valuable metal money and
“I.O.U.s” called “promissory note currency” based upon the
taxes, including income tax, is the governments’ methods to extract that only
asset that is not
encumbered and promised by the bankrupt corporate government. And, since the
government, cannot take the King’s (free will adult humans’) money to pay their
more credits from the bankers, they deceive people into
they are “one and the same” as the fiction surname and referential given names
owned by government/Crown.
ABOUT “OUR” NAME?
are “given” to the child by its parents. Given names are the real “surname”.
The “family” name is inherited, and is a reference names to the surnames. But,
there is a catch. A “gift” is a form of “contract”. A contract must have an offerer (offer) and acceptor or receiver (acceptance), both
of which must be voluntary by all parties concerned. A minor cannot be party to
a contract - so the gift of a name cannot lawfully be accepted by the infant. And no adult
has ever done anything to “accept” the given names upon reaching adulthood
(majority). Thus, adult humans do not have a name or number -
(we) only have nick names or commonly called names.
be further noted that an adult human cannot have a name, as only “things” have
human is a free-will mind occupying a human body. A mind is not a “thing”, but
is only a
“process” – the interaction of electrons within a human brain
– an electro-chemical computer.
say: “I” or “I am”, or “I will”, it is your mind that is the source of such a
statement, not your physical body. Thus, the only lawful name we can give
ourselves is “I” or “Me”. All others are, fiction, and mostly “hearsay”, as
others told us in times past.
FOR THE DOUBTING THOMAS:
If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses
the word INCLUDES and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word, the
statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of
the ordinary meaning of the word.
Today we live in a world where we are told that our fundamental rights still
exist, but there are times when we wonder how this can be so. For example, we can
have the full force of the law brought down upon us with a traffic violation,
income tax regularity, refusing to fill in census forms, etc. These offences do
no harm to another human being and in no way violate any individuals
fundamental rights and freedoms, so we ask "how can this be?"
The answer is that your fundamental rights and freedoms are still intact as a
natural-person, but you have been tricked into believing that you have to
follow the Laws created for the artificial-person.
Following the Second World War, the United Nations Assembly prepared the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The assembly called upon all Member
countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be
disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other
educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of
countries or territories."
I have never seen this done in any school. Have you?
In order to implement SLAVERY of its 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 organized by its citizens.
The technique used by the government was to create a CORPORATION for every
human-being in Canada.
As creator of a CORPORATION, the government can demand anything it wants from
the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a corporation does not have feelings and
cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by it
creators and the corporation must obey its creator. These corporations must
then have a business number and so one is assigned to each PERSON it creates.
Such a number is called a S.I.N. (Slave Identification
Number aka Social Insurance Number)
Finally, the government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run
the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the
Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the
government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation
by signing such contracts as Driver's License, Bank Accounts, Citizenship
Cards, Passports, etc.
In the 'Income Tax Act', the government just decrees that John Doe is the legal
Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only
contract involved in the annual Income Tax Return(yes it is a contract for one
year) wherein John Doe gives his 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.
There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of
human-being: john doe
natural-person: John Doe
quasi natural/artificial-person: John DOE
corporation/artificial-person: JOHN DOE
Nomme de Guerre: DOE, JOHN
Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above "persons":
The 'human-being' has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by
The 'natural-person' has all the rights and freedoms as provided by man with
the Magna Charta and Canadian Bill of Rights.
The 'quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights,
but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which
rights have been lost.
The 'corporation/artificial-person' has limited rights and freedoms as provided
by the creator of the Corporation.
The' Nomme de Guerre' has no rights and freedoms and
is a complete slave to the Admiral.
There is so much more than what I have just shared here. It is only the tip of
the iceberg. But it is also enough to make you aware of what you are up against
and the deceptions built into our system of rule by governments.
Some things to think about.
I have no ID, no drivers license, no passport, no bank
accounts, no address.
I AM, a human being. I require no such things.
Free yourselves now.
your humble servant,
24 October, 2006
From the OREGON RULES OF COURT
DEBTOR'S CURRENT NAME
The caption of each
petition shall include the debtor's full and correct name in capital letters.
If the debtor is an individual, then the first, middle and last names shall be
used. The first entity name in the caption shall be deemed the debtor except in
a joint petition where the first full name shown for each individual shall be
deemed to be the name of each debtor.
effective December 1, 1991. ]
Thus it is, folks, the
all caps spelling of your strawman/birth certificate
name indicates a 'debtor' - one responsible for the debt of the corporation
called the UNITED STATES (or CANADA).
You, by accepting the
birth certificate name as your own, have the false status of
'dissident/disobedient slave imposed upon you, so that the banksters
of the Vatican can steal your life = time = labour without any rules obligating the observance of
unalienable rights. Check the name on your bank account, credit cards,
licenses, government correspondence - to see how they spell the birth certificate