ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 – References to persons

(C’wlth.) ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 –
References to persons
(1) In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as “person”, “party”, “someone”,
“anyone”, “no-one”, “one”, “another” and “whoever”), include a body politic or corporate as well as an
individual.
(2) Express references in an Act to companies, corporations or bodies corporate do not imply that
expressions in that Act, of the kind mentioned in subsection (1), do not include companies, corporations or
bodies corporate.
01:28 In 2012, Section 2C was added
02:34 want you to think 3 things – individual, corporation, body politic
02:43 … lawyer, freemason talk for as corporate sole …
02:48 Part (2) of 2C
03:00 do not include companies, corporations or bodies corporate
03:07 Individual
03:23 if they were to write it correctly and not in freemason-ese …
03:25 Polysyndeton, Asyndeton
03:35 Polysyndeton explained
04:00 Asyndeton explained
04:13 the comma (here) represents the “or” again
04:30 “or a corporate as well as an individual”
Corporation Sole
04:37 ‘Recipe’ for a corporation sole’
04:45 as well = in addition, too
as well[as well]DEFINITION in addition; too.
“the museum provides hours of fun and a few surprises as well”
with equal reason or an equally good result.
“I may as well have a look”
sensible, appropriate, or desirable.
“it would be as well to let him go”
05:04 Would you like a pizza or steak as well as chips?
05:35 (2C) any reference to any person, one, entity, anything means a corporation sole
05:38 [ Shadow Puppet Show ]05:45 … a corporation is an equity entity, it doesn’t exist … it’s in equity and requires consent
05:50 Equity requires consent
05:58 if you don’t consent, they have got a big problem
06:18 ‘They’ put everything on not getting caught
06:23 Back to 2C – reference to persons
(C’wlth.) ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 –
References to persons
(1) In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as “person”, “party”, “someone”,
“anyone”, “no-one”, “one”, “another” and “whoever”), include a body politic or corporate as well as an
individual.
(2) Express references in an Act to companies, corporations or bodies corporate do not imply that
expressions in that Act, of the kind mentioned in subsection (1), do not include companies, corporations or
bodies corporate.
06:26 in (1) persons generally
06:53 “in any Act”
06:57 this is one step under the Constitution
07:05 Entire Law in Australia only applies to a “corporation sole”[since addition of Section 2C in 2012 – refer 01:28 ]07:28 this is the ingredients for a corporation sole
———————————[ The other place where ‘person’ is mentioned is in the Vagrancy Acts –
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/ResearchPublications/ResearchBriefs/2005/200506.pdf
Currently, one of the grounds upon which a person can be declared a vagrant is to, without lawful excuse, wilfully expose
‘his or her person in view of any person in any public place’: s 4(1)(g)(iv).
Indecent exposure is an offence in most jurisdictions. For example, in NSW it is an offence for a person in, or within view
of a public place or school, to obscenely expose his or her person.70
In an earlier version –
“… shall not expose a person’s person …”
So, in here ‘person’ has a completely different meaning. ]———————————————–
07:45 if this (individual in 2C (1) ) would say man or woman Police (body
corporate) could not arrest. Police can only get jurisdiction
with another body corporate (by getting your consent)
08:03 That’s how Police (body corp.) get contractual jurisdiction
with you (individual) as an agent.
08:24 This is how the whole system is working. It is why it is “private”[ ever wondered why, when “Plod” rings, it’s always a “Private Number”
08:32 Argument from Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum
ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence
for an argument’s conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent
form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3]Other authors
consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an
argument.[4]

This is what Judges do.
08:36 “I’m in charge, what I say goes”
That doesn’t exist in Law, that exists in Equity[ Get that Constitutional rubbish (or “gobbledygook”) out of my court ]08:42 … in fiction it requires your consent …
The ‘Wordmark’, ALL-CAPS-NAME gives consent
—————————
Dark Side Of The Occult Exposed
2 hrs
Do you understand what Rohan Lorian is saying when he mentions the surname is a wordmark?
A wordmark is a trademark made out of text.
Meaning, it’s a picture. It’s not a word.
Which means they are abusing Legal Fictions. They are abusing the Doctrine of Presumptions. They are abusing Language. Proper nouns and
names.
A Legal Fiction can only exist if you consent.
You must start looking at these crucial points, Did you consent? Did you take the documents? Did you apply for them? Did you call yourself by
your wordmark, which is a species of trademark?
Legal Fictions – by Lon L. Fuller (158 pages)
Free Download (pdf, 9.70 MB)
http://b-ok.cc/book/929345/614c86
——————-
09:22 It is well known as a fallacy
09:28 when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context
The authority we have given them is the Chicago Manual of Style, Privacy Act …
09:45 Where are ‘they’ getting their facts from? … complete fantasy …
doing it to save their own @R$E
10:00 … not going to make a decision to put ‘me’ in jail …
10:05 [ David:Winn-Miller ][143] A helpful example is that of American guru David Wynn Miller [“Miller”] (usually styled
“PLENIPOTENTIARY JUDGE David-Wynn: Miller”), who advocates a bizarre form of “legal grammar”,
which is not merely incomprehensible in Canada, but equally so in any other jurisdiction. National Leasing
Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII), 102 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 provides
examples of the resulting text. See also: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Chesney, 2001 BCSC
625 (CanLII), 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826; Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337
(CanLII), 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700. Succinctly, it appears that his law grammar provides rules on how to
structure ‘legally effective’ documents. The result is very difficult to understand. Any defective document
(ie. one not written in ‘Millerese’) is “fictitious‑language/scribble”: National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top
West Ventures Ltd., at para. 6.
10:10 In Meads v Meads a precedent was set by Judge Brookes
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
10:17 “Researcher” [ Rob Sudy ] … think he’s a company …
——————
https://para-legal.org.au/tag/rob-sudy/
——————
10:33 Every argument was smashed by Judge Brookes
10:48 Comity
COMITY. Courtesy; complaisance; respect; a
willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter
of right, but out of deference and good will. Dow
v. Lillie, 26 N.D. 512, 144 N.W. 1082, 1088, L.R.A.
1915D, 754; Cox v. Terminal R. Ass’n of St. Louis,
331 Mo. 910, 55 S.W.2d 685.
Comity of Nations
( Lat. comitas gentium)
The most appropriate phrase to express the
true foundation and extent of the obligation of
the laws of one nation within the territories of
another. Story, Confl.Laws, § 38. That body of
rules which states observe towards one another
from courtesy or mutual convenience, although
they do not form part of international law. Holtz.
Enc. s. v. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct.
139, 40 L.Ed. 95; People v. Rushworth, 294 Ill.
455, 128 N.E. 555, 558; Second Russian Ins. Co. v.
Miller, C.C.A.N.Y., 297 F. 404, 409.
It is derived altogether from the voluntary consent of the
latter; and it is inadmissible when it is contrary to its
known policy, or prejudicial to its interests. In the silence
of any positive rule affirming or denying or restraining the
operation of foreign laws, courts of justice presume the
tacit adoption of them by their own government, unless
repugnant to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. It
,is not the comity of the courts, but the comity of the
nation, which is administered and ascertained in the same
way, and guided by the same reasoning, by which all other
principles of the municipal law are ascertained and guided.
The recognition which one nation allows within its territory
to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another
nation, having due regard both to international duty and
convenience and to the rights of its own citizens or of
other persons who are under the protection of its laws.
State ex rel. National Surety Corporation v. Price, 129 Neb.
433, 261 N.W. 894.
“The use of the word ‘comity’ as expressing the basis of
jurisdiction has been criticized. It is, however, a mere
question of definition. The principles lying behind the
word are recognized. * * * The truth remains that
jurisdiction depends upon the law of the forum, and this
law in turn depends upon the public policy disclosed by
the acts and declarations of the political departments of
the government.” Russian Socialist Federated Soviet
Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N.Y. 255, 139 N.E. 259, 260.
‘Judicial Comity
The principle in accordance with which the
courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect
to the laws and judicial decisions of another, not
as a matter of obligation, but out of deference
and respect. Franzen v. Zimmer, 35 N.Y.S. 612,
90 Hun 103; Stowp v. Bank, C.C.Me., 92 F. 96;
Strawn Mercantile Co. v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.
Civ.App., 279 S.W. 473, 474; Bobala v. Bobala, 68
Ohio App. 63, 33 N.E.2d 845, 849.
There is no statute or common-law rule by which one
court is bound to abide by the decisions of another court
of equal rank. It does so simply for what may be called
comity among judges. There is no common law or statutory
rule to oblige a court to bow to its own decisions; it
does so on the ground of judicial comity. (1884) 9 P.D.
98, per Brett, M. R.
Of such a use of the word, however, Dicey says : “The
term ‘comity’ * * * is open to the charge of implying
that the judge, when he applies foreign law to a particular
case, does so as a matter of caprice or favor.”
Comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience
and expediency. It is something more than mere
courtesy, which implies only deference to the opinion of
others, since it has a substantial value in securing uniformity
of decision, and discouraging repeated litigation
of the same question. But its obligation is not imperative.
Comity persuades; but it does not command. It declares
not how a case shall be decided, but how it may with propriety
be decided. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Mfg. Co., 177 U.S.
485, 488, 20 S.Ct. 708, 44 L.Ed. 856; National Electric Signaling
Co. v. Telefunken Wireless Telegraph Co. of United
States, C.C.A.N.Y., 221 F. 629, 632; Lauer V. Freudenthal,
96 Wash. 394, 165 P. 98, 99.
Comity of States
Simply a phrase designating the practice by
which the courts of one state follow the decision of
another on a like question, though not bound by
law of precedents to do so. Larrick v. Walters, 39
Ohio App. 363, 177 N.E. 642, 645.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968, Page 334.
NOUN
JUDICIAL COMITY. Principle in accordance with
which courts of one state or jurisdiction give effect
to laws and judicial decisions of another state out
of deference and respect, not obligation. Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Thomasville,
100 Fla. 748, 130 So. 7, 8.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968, Page 984.
Comity is where a case in one country
can be used in another e.g, Cruden v Neal,
Meads v Meads etc.
10:55 David:Winn-Miller 2001 BCSC 111[143] A helpful example is that of American guru David Wynn Miller [“Miller”] (usually styled
“PLENIPOTENTIARY JUDGE David-Wynn: Miller”), who advocates a bizarre form of “legal grammar”,
which is not merely incomprehensible in Canada, but equally so in any other jurisdiction. National Leasing
Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII), 102 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 provides
examples of the resulting text. See also: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Chesney, 2001 BCSC
625 (CanLII), 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826; Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337
(CanLII), 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700. Succinctly, it appears that his law grammar provides rules on how to
structure ‘legally effective’ documents. The result is very difficult to understand. Any defective document
(ie. one not written in ‘Millerese’) is “fictitious‑language/scribble”: National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top
West Ventures Ltd., at para. 6.
11:45 Rom and I are saying, you can’t have
12:15 If you can’t accept it, you can’t read it
Gobbledygook
gobbledygook[ˈɡɒb(ə)ldɪˌɡuːk]gobbledegook (noun)
language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of technical terms.
“reams of financial gobbledygook”
synonyms: jargon · unintelligible language · obscure language · gibberish · claptrap · nonsense · rubbish · balde
rdash · blather · blether ·
argle-bargle · mumbo jumbo · drivel · rot · tripe · hogwash · baloney · bilge · bosh · bull · bunk · guff ·
eyewash · piffle · twaddle · poppycock· phooey · hooey · malarkey · dribble ·
cobblers · codswallop · cock · stuff and nonsense · double Dutch · tosh · cack · havers ·
garbage · flapdoodle · blathers ·
wack · bushwa · applesauce · bunkum · tommyrot · cod · gammon · toffee
12:55 In Alberta, Canada – Meads v Meads
13:25 These people are projecting on us what ‘they’ are doing
13:30 Sovereign Citizen – If you want to be a Sov. Cit. – go join the Police.
13:48 The corporation is a person: The Language of Legal Fiction
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr61&div=22
image.png
14:28 In N.S.W. every Magistrate and Judge is under the Judicial Officers Act 1986
is a corporate entity.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/joa1986155/
JUDICIAL OFFICERS ACT 1986 – As at 28 November 2018 – Act 100 of 1986
15:08
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS.
Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Co.Litt. 210a; Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169
S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Oki. 487,
40 P.2d 1097, 1100.
Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.
Fazio v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 321 Pa. 7, 182 A. 696,
698; Saslaw v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St. 496, 14 N.E.2d
930, 932.
When certain persons or things are specified, in a
law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others
from its operation may be inferred. Little v. Town of
Conway, 171 S.C. 27, 170 S.E. 447, 448.
Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception
to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects
of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects
are excluded, People v. One 1941 Ford 8 Stake
Truck, Engine No. 99T370053, License No. P.8410,
Cal., 159 P.2d 641, 642.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968, Page 692.
15:19 The Law applies to men and women, it does not apply to corporations
NOUN
which is what they are making the decision for in Meads v Meads
15:35 one of the decisions they made is ‘includes’ does not exclude everything else
15:55 Laws of Canada includes Territorial Waters …
16:04 where do we put the limit on ‘includes’
16:48 Little private constitutions used by the Queen of Australia,
the Queen of Canada or Queen of America
17:10 Gobbledygook Document
17:21 (Fact Document ) [ Rob Sudy Quote ]17:25 There’s a guy out there [ Rob Sudy ] who runs a website
https://para-legal.org.au/tag/rob-sudy/
17:30 can’t answer the question “Is ALL CAPS a Trademark?
18:25 No such thing as lower-case (Roman) lettering
18:47 only Majuscule lettering – that’s completely wrong.
majuscule[ˈmadʒəskjuːl]large lettering, either capital or uncial, in which all the letters are the same height.
“Insular majuscule script”
synonyms: upper-case · block · uncial · majuscule
a large letter.
18:54 He (Rob Sudy) reckons lower case (Roman) didn’t happen until 800 AD
19:03 this is from London, 1st century AD – Lower-case Latin
19:19 he’s 700 years out of date
19:28 Meads v Meads has a lot of this in it – Judicial activism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on
existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the
specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely
related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.
19:48 Treason, Slavery
20:10 all these facts are written by government
20:20 Cartoon (Homer arrested by two SEC Officers)
20:37 the world is being run by this
20:40 this is what the yellow-vest riots in France are all about
20:47 SEC Badge Trump is President and the SEC run all the Police
21:03 End Credits