John Spirit has a new video. With new exciting definitions for words that we already thought we understood. Like telling us we're fools for thinking that we're resident in Canada just because we live here. Idiots! John knows better. Like Russ Porisky he has the gift of being able to dive below the surface of legislation to glean it's hidden meaning buried in the depths. A hidden meaning that is right out in the open in front of us if we just have the analytical insight to see it. Canadian statutes are designed to take away your rights to be a person by calling you something else. If you want a hunting license you are a HUNTER. Fishing licenses, a FISHERMAN. The highway safety act makes you a DRIVER and education acts remove your status as a human being and turn you into a STUDENT. The medical enactments also strip you of your humanity by making you a PATIENT (John likes capitalizing).
Words words words. Apparently if words can be defined in different ways then John gets to pick the ones he can use to deconstruct the Income Tax Act regardless of common sense or prior jurisprudence. Take resident. Residence doesn't mean where you live it means where you reside. And he claims that it really refers to where a corporation conducts its business and where a doctor does his residency. Any of you Canadian readers doctors in residency? No? Then good news, you're not resident in Canada for income tax purposes.
But the big one is the Income Tax Act which attempts, through definitions, to change John's status from a free human being into an OFFICER of Canada or servant of Her Majesty! Bastards! Good thing John's on the case. The Income Tax Act definition of Employed means performing the duties of an office or employment. So what's an office?
office means the position of an individual entitling the individual to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration and includes a judicial office, the office of a minister of the Crown, the office of a member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada, a member of a legislative assembly or a member of a legislative or executive council and any other office, the incumbent of which is elected by popular vote or is elected or appointed in a representative capacity and also includes the position of a corporation director, and officer means a person holding such an office;
This was enacted because of confusion as to whether elected official, or people like judges who are supposedly independent of the government, were actually employed for tax purposes. So this was added to the definition to bring them clearly into the Act.
But not to John! If you work for an office it means you work for the government! And since it is in the definition of office it means you are an officer. And if you are an officer it means you work for the government as a servant of the Queen. It all flows so logically. One responder just doesn't quite make the connection leading to this exchange;
ura soul 23 hours ago
where the definition of 'employment' is examined here, i feel there is a jump of logic being made to claim that the definition automatically requires the individual to be 'working for the government'. the definition refers to 'office' and says that this definition INCLUDES judicial 'offices' but does not say that 'everyone who is employed is in a position of governmental office'. or am i missing something?
hatchirokuae86 21 hours ago
Yes, you are missing something. In law, the inclusion of one or more, means the exclusion of all others. So if anything says, "including" than anything not specifically included is excluded.
ura soul 21 hours ago
+hatchirokuae86 ok, so reading this again then - the issue i am pointing to is that the prior line in the document being quoted states: "emplóyed" means performing the duties of an office or employment. if 'office' is limited to only the governmental types of roles being stipulated, that still allows the other definition of the word 'employed' to be valid, which is to say that to be employed is to be 'performing the duties of employment'. so there is space left in the definition that does not require that we are 'in office' and thus doing the work of the government if we are simply 'employed'. or did i miss something else?
hatchirokuae86 20 hours ago
+ura soul yes so the "or" acts as the synonym if you will. The or stipulates that both definitions are one and the same
ura soul 20 hours ago
+hatchirokuae86 obviously the logic you are applying here is not standard logic, as would be used in science and common use of words. where can i read about the legalise definition of 'or' that you are referring to here? i have never seen it before. thanks
hatchirokuae86 20 hours ago
+ura soul get yourself a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary. I use an 8th edition, but there are usually good deals on them used from Amazon from the 6th edition up through the 10th edition. And yes, it was written to confuse you on purpose. They want you to mentally fill in info that isn't actually written and use words with multiple meanings. Ex. You might receive a letter that states "A penalty has been assessed in the amount of... " and you assume it's your penalty, but they never said you have been assessed this penalty, just that one exists. It takes study and diligence to comprehend this material, but once you do, boy does it all take on a very different meaning.
ura soul 20 hours ago
+hatchirokuae86 i do have access to such books. are you recommending to look up the word 'or'?
hatchirokuae86 19 hours ago
+ura soul Yes. According to BLD, "or" is a disjunctive particle...It is used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means "in other words", "to writ", or "that is to say"...
Let me step in on that one. According to hatchirokuae If my wife says "What shall we do today? We can go to a movie or we'll go skydiving" what she is actually saying is "What shall we do today? We can go to a movie, that is to say, we'll go skydiving". It's all so clear now why wife and I are always squabbling. We're talking at cross-purposes because, like ura soul, I don't understand legalese.
Anyhow ura soul was still confused;
ura soul 56 minutes ago
+hatchirokuae86 is there a particular part of the book you are locating that definition in? in the versions i am looking at i am just seeing O.R. (acronym) and no entry for 'or'.
hatchirokuae86 50 minutes ago
+ura soul it was just in alphabetical order in my copy.
ura soul 46 minutes ago
+hatchirokuae86 that's odd.. both my versions have the same list of words at the start of the 'or' area and neither includes the word 'or'. hmm..
Look ura soul, you want to play with the big boys? The heavy hitters like spirit John and hatchirokuae? Then dump that useless copy of Black's and get the super-secret one known only to the Freeman elite. The one that asks you what you want the definition to say before it gives you one.
If you check the free online version of Black's it does give a definition of 'or' although not exactly to point with our discussion;
OR
A term used in heraldry, and signifying gold; called "sol-' by some heralds when it occurs in the arms of princes, and "topaz"' or "carbuncle" when borne by peers. Engravers represent it by an indefinite number of small points. Wharton.
http://thelawdictionary.org/letter/o/page/34/
Back to the tedium that is John Spirit. This whole video is just him reading verbatim, ploddingly and haltingly, from an unidentified document. Extremely hard going for a listener. It is only 25 minutes long but it seems like it goes on forever. Largely because he keeps repeating the same things over, and over, and over. And then at about 12 minutes it got too stupid for me and I bailed. He got on to that beloved Freeman belief that the word "includes" means "includes only the following" so when the definition of employee included an officer it meant only officers were employees. And, as John told us a half dozen times in the past 12 minutes, officers are Crown employees so the only people who are employees and pay tax are government workers.
Anybody else want to go past that, be my guest. I can only take so much of John in one shot and 12 minutes seems to be my limit. Particularly since at least three-quarters of that short stretch of time were pure padding with John just repeating himself ad infinitum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fOvFJ7L4w0
Sadly John is about the best that the Freemen have left. Menard discredited and on the run, down to posting things like this on Face Book;
Scientists at a Newfoundland University used $275,000 Federal grant to determine why farts smell.
They concluded it is because they come from our ass
Dean in jail, Lindsay chasing his coronation oath fantasy and trying to relive his glory days back when his right to travel beliefs were still open for argument. Belanger MIA, almost six months since his last video. Boisjoli down to gibberish ravings on Quatloos. And we're left with a droning skeleton with the charisma of a potato.
