Decoding the Definition of 'Person' in the Interpretations Act 1978

Get our FREE Peace Keepers and Court Auditor courses here at peacekeepers.org.uk/
FREE Council Tax dispute challenge download here noc.peacekeepers.org.uk/
"Peace Keepers have been created to help secure a just and equitable existence., coming together to defend the peoples peace, to restore and preserve our inalienable rights, the highest standing in truth to be sovereign."
Nothing can be done to the prejudice of the people.
(Bill of Rights 1688)
Law is the people’s birth right.
(Act of Settlement 1700)
All are equal under the law.
No one is above the law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
No one can knowingly impose their will upon any other without freewill.
Everybody has lawful excuse to the right of self defence.
---------------------------------
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Allowance is made for "fair use" purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
-----------------------------------------------------------

[@publicnotice4169]

Person is fiction you cant be a natural fiction

[@anarchi108]

Includes is a negative implication cannon it’s the common law principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterus which means that when reference is made to one thing , excludes all others.

[@G58]

What you appear to be missing is that this issue is not about how WE identify ourselves, but rather how the powers that shouldn’t be actually regard us.

[@davevarney2299]

Ballentine's Law Dictionary definition of monster: A human-being by birth. Hu-man = colour of man = not man. The problem is the language. It can be interpreted in millions of different ways. It's been designed that way to confuse and divide. We're all arguing about what the meaning of a word is, meanwhile, the powers that shouldn't be are destroying our lives and our kid's futures.

[@maggiemccall7090]

ok i am open to what you are saying, but what about this the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterus" which means that when reference is made to one thing, it excludes all others, can you explain this please? HUman is a monster, according to Black's law dictionary can you explain this please? person includes (without prejudice to the provisions of the M1Interpretation Act 1978) an association corporate or unincorporate; so i am lost.

[@McDUBBOY]

if you use the word inclued it exclueds all before or after

[@Spenny-px3mu]

To 'Include' means to 'exclude everything' else. Basic stuff guys.

[@publicnotice4169]

I have my own dictonary

[@louiseburnett5795]

W H E R E I S T H E P E R S O N A C T ?

[@gregforde6234]

We are in court on 13th, fully armed with 3 Notices, etc, proving the council has no authority and the courts colluded with the council, in relying on counil paperwork to act as a summons. Heartfelt thanks to Marc, Brian, Lance and the team.

[@freeman5209]

"In everyday life, when one speaks of a Person one means an individual human being, but in the terminology of the law the word has a different and as it happens much older signification. Person is derived from the latin "Per" (through) and "Sonare" (to sound); for in ancient times "persona" signified an actors mask through which the sound of his voice would come to the audience" - (intro to English law, James, Butterworths press 1962, Ch.4 Personality Status and Capacity).

[@keithshippey230]

Isn’t the original of person a mask you put on your face

[@boptah7489]

A person may be "an individual human being" v when interpreted legally. Collins dictionary is a legal publication

[@scottishravioli2719]

Are we really equating ordinary dictionary definitions with legal ones? (includes/ person) Are we sincerely suggesting that asking "the ordinary person on the street" about their understanding of 'person' will add anything to this debate? - or that their lack of knowledge of the other states of 'person' then means that these lack substance? I found this discussion, as usual, rather status quoish and unsovereign. And frankly getting tired of the patronising comments towards all those who don't agree with them. This time we stooped to a 'knitting club' example. Lol. Sneering is unprofessional. Arrogance is unattractive.

[@roypattonNitroFixRacing]

Include / includes / may include read differently in statutes , than we were taught in school ..

[@Kirky9lad]

One apple is one apple

[@user-bq3og5pz9w]

if the judge is going to put a plead or order and act on your behalf then require leave of court so you can put a written notice before the court.

[@itsacrazyworld1817]

The public is not told of this fraud many refer to as “personage”, so they blindly volunteer themselves into this legal character. As our courts are run under the principle “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, assent to choose to define yourself as a “person” is presumed - unless denied.

[@jukeboxjonnie]

Maybe YOU can specify or identify your standing in any interaction. At the end of the day, it's up to you. What is the singular of The People? Are they all entities in commerce? Who specifies these rules? You do. Commerce is a fiction, YOU are a fact. Your reality is yours and no man nor is dictionary has authority to define you unless you authorise them to do so.

[@nyceimsuijuris6965]

Where is my comment.... where I proved you guys wrong. The TRUE and ONLY difference between 'natural' and 'artificial' person or persons, being that the ARE BOTH FICTIONS OF LAW, is their capacity to engage in trusts or contracts. PERIOD! Bank of Canada can act as a natural person. "Capacity (3) The Bank has, in respect of its powers, all the rights, powers, privileges and capacity of a natural person." [Business Development Bank of Canada Act]. The truth is still truth regardless of how one reconciles it. Care to explain section 3 of the Act?