In America we speak a minimum of three languages: Slang, Formal English, and Legal English (Legalese), Though similar, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. This article is written in Legal English. 


It’s the language of the street. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next. It abounds with special and paradoxical interpretations. Once must “grow up” with the language to fully appreciate its peculiarities. 

Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say either, “That’s really cool!” or “That’s really hot!” Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, “That’s B-A-D!” or “That’s G-O-O-D!” 

 Formal English

Precise communications require a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the schools, and it is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or centuries to evolve its meanings. 

 Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show slang or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more popular usages.

Many favor Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (which is also online because it is useful in understanding words used in the U.S. Constitution. G. & C. Merriam Webster’s unabridged dictionary published in 1953 and earlier is great for modern meanings. 

 Legal English

When you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Also known as King’s English, or the Language of the Court Room, Legal English is extremely stable, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning. 

Because accuracy is required for good legal communication, legal definitions tend to be rather verbose. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve that accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries. The more thorough dictionaries are entitled “Corpus Juris” and “Words and Phrases.” A given word could require fifty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning. Other dictionaries (in descending order of this author’s preference) include Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1872 Edition), Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, and Black’s Law Dictionary (4th edition or earlier). 

Later editions of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th through 7th Editions are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations. 

The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and the people’s point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government’s point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former. 

For an excellent research paper on the use of dictionaries in the Supreme Court of the United States, see Kevin Werbach’s LOOKING IT UP:  The Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation (1994).

                                                                                   Government Manipulation of Language 

Government Tricks:

This is perhaps the most important page on this website.

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 favor. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two keywords 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).

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 from DetaxCanada: 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”.

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;


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;


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 personincludes 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.

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).

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;


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 elsewhere 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 to 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 artificial 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 would 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. See the PDF document Who Is You? for additional insight.

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. For a starter, here is a document which discusses this topic.

Seventh Trick:

The seventh ‘trick’ is to have you affix your “signature” to documents, thereby creating joinder with Artificial Person represented by the “signature” in some official capacity. Human beings use an “autograph” not a “signature”.

“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)

End – Government Manipulation of Language – Source: 


It appears that the author, of the above article, is of Canadian national. The same tricks are present within the U.S. Corporation.  Look no further than the 

U.S. Code



Section 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Which reads:

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.  

Click HERE to read this section of the U.S. Code in its entirety and then comprehend what “any stage of development” actually means.  Below are the stages of human development.

Depending on who you ask, there are anywhere from 5 to 7 “stages of human development”.  There is no dispute that “infancy” is the first.  There is even debate on how long one is an infant.  Some sources say 0-2 years of age when others say “infancy” is 0-1 years of age.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says 0-1 year of age (Source).  So no matter which source you use, and “infant” is no more than two (2) years of age.  Every single “State” in the U.S. Corporation is an Agency of the U.S. Government.  Click HERE for a complete official list of agencies of the United States.

BACK to People’s rights vs citizen’s rights
BACK to Foundation
FORWARD to Republic vs. democracy