This word imho has a very specific legal/lawful meaning.
To this end all information that can be found to support the meaning of this word must be placed here for all to study.
There are legal maxims to support this word as well as other phrases that are regularly and routinely used in document construction that go to show its real true meaning.
The route of the word also needs establishing from latin and early use.
Also, there a number of case law to support, that used in a legal document, it is not a normal everyday word, but a very very precise term.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/include
.
the only case where i have been able to find a legal use of the word includes from bailli
“this case has removed from easy access on baillii…i wonder why?”
.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1996/952.html
.
blacks law
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/
http://www.law-dictionary.org/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/index.cfm
.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/executory-contract.html#ixzz1jQNxTGJQ
.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/subjectGuides/law/Lawabbrev.aspx
good source to show what everyone is using and yes Blacks does get used in this country
strouds judicial dictionary of words and phrases sweet and maxwell
jowitts
halsburys
lexis nexis
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm
http://www.webster1828.com/websters1828/definition.aspx?word=Include
.
the following pdf is the Interpretation Act 1978 page 10 show the schedule stating words or phrases defined. “Person” is defined on page 13 as…….
.
” Person ” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.
[1889]
.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/pdfs/ukpga_19780030_en.pdf
“body of persons” means any body politic, corporate or collegiate and any company, fraternity, fellowship or society of persons whether corporate or not corporate infact any association where two or more people are connected together can be called a ” body of persons”…..The only sensible thing if it can be proved by evidence is that we as in a man or woman may be part of a trust or are owned in some way.
.
“Corporate or Unincorporate ?” This seems to get interesting when you delve into this part.
.
In most countries, an unincorporated association does not have separate legal personality, and few members of the association usually enjoy limited liability. However, in some countries they are treated as having separate legal personality for most purposes. However, because of their lack of legal personality, unincorporated associations sometimes fall foul of the general common law prohibitions against purpose trusts…leading me to believe that we are a construed as unincorporated trust……….if they can prove it!!!!
.
.
Please read this carefully and you will come to realise that any act relating to a “Person” does not apply to People Men or Women!
Please run this by any Solicitor Barrister Magistrate or Judge with the proviso that they sign a sworn affidavit of truth disagreeing point for point all the points I have made below. I believe that all these points are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The links referred to are Acts or Statutes.
We the People are governed by consent. If we don’t consent there is no law. Its a “RULE”.
.
An Act or Statute can be defined as …” A legislated rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed “ is a commonly used phrase one which I cannot find the source to.
it appears on a tpuc blog in the distance past i believe
.
The legal meaning of the word Person is found in the Interpretation Act 1978
” Person ” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.[1889]
The legal meaning of the word “includes” has the same meaning and context as the word “means” in this interpretation.
.
To include something must be to exclude something/everything else. This is basic english grammar which is supported by legal maxims.
.
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (The express mention of one thing excludes all others).
.
Ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio. (2 Inst. 173) – A passage is best interpreted by reference to what precedes and what follows it.
.
Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem (Co. Litt. 36 a.) – The words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them.
.
“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
.
The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. … This doctrine decrees that where the law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, and irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Therefore a “PERSON” is a “Corporation” or a “Body of Persons”