The Language Of Legalese

in #sovereign7 years ago

If you stop and think about our every day language, you'll notice there's not one real kind of english.
Yes, there is proper english that we all learn in school, but there are other kinds of english too.
There's english that is spoken differently between Canada and the US, or other places like the UK.
There's slang english (dialects) even within countries that varies from place to place.
There's english definitions used in intellectual studies such as psychology or biology.
There's english in the medical field, in the army and many more professions that has different definitions of the words.
There's even the etymology of words; the original definition of words.

The one though that is most prominent and most dangerous - the english that none of us know but ironically it seems to apply to everyone... is called legalese.

Legalese is the english language that the law society uses - lawyers, judges, policy makers etc.
This is the kind of english that is cited in the legislations - the acts and statues that allegedly give power of authorities to hold power over you - to control the things you do and punish you if you do wrong by them.

Whenever anyone asks about sovereignty or freedom in general in terms of freeing one's self from government rule and opening your mind to the game that's really before you - I suggest they get their hands on a blacks law dictionary. Generally it's a good idea to read versions 1-4, which can often be easily found on the internet to download for free.
World freeman society used to have an accessible online first and second editions but have since been removed.
You can find a link HERE to download first and second editions via pdf to your computer, as the online version no longer works through the Freeman website. Versions five and up have a lot of case law in them vs. common law and other law rulings. These kinds of case law rulings can be great if you know what you're doing in court and can swing jurisdiction around on them in your favour, but otherwise they're useless as you should use a lawyer instead if you intend on operating under the jurisdiction of the bar.

If you take a peek into the dictionary, you can see basic definitions have changed from that of websters.

Take for example the word driver.
When you think of the word driver - you think to yourself someone like you and I behind the wheel of a car.
A google definition of the word says this,

a person who drives a vehicle.

The definition in a blacks law second edition dictionary says this,

one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street rail road car.

Well wait a moment?

If you are not employed while going from point A to point B in your car, does that mean you are a driver?

Take another definition, a person.
Google search tells us it's this,

a human being regarded as an individual.

Black's law first edition says however,

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which he holds entitles him and the duties which it imposes. A human being considered capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "bodies politic."

Did your mind just get blown a little bit?

Here's the best bit. If you hop over to Canada's Interpretation Act and check out the definition of person it will tell you,

person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; (personne)

Boom.

The next time you read any legislation or hear any member of the bar say any definition, be sure to check out what they are actually saying in a dictionary instead of the colloquial definition we're so used to using. With that very language, they are roping you into things you do not comprehend, and thus need an interpreter representing you - your lawyer.

Sort:  

Indeed.
Much nicer when people learn they're being deceived.

I remember when Matthew first started introducing me to legalese my mind was blown. He had taken me just far ebough down the rabbit hole that I knew there would be no turning back. I do believe fhe reason why our government mail and ID put our names in all capitals ia because they are referring and communicating with our corporations and not our colloquial person. -Aimee

You bet. Have you heard of edward jay robin at all?
he has a youtube channel you might find interesting.
or you can check out @wwf's book standing in honour OR @mika-otf-rasila
Both have amazing work on steemit too.

We are following @wwf but haven't read the book. Your other two sources are also unfamiliar to me. I will have to check them out. Thanks for the hot tips. -A

check em out when you have the time.
Well worth it and will absolutely further your studies in sovereignty

This reminds me of some thoughts suggested to me by Pierre Doust in Montreal a few years ago. The anarchist in me suggests to not give such language of authority credibility by using it in one's logic.

Is that pete doust on facebook?
I this the same guy who calls people names all the time?
Not sure if it's the same guy but if it is, I won't listen to him anymore.
He's fucken rude. :(

That's the thing, you avoid it unless to say that you are not it.
if you claim that's what you are, you're on the hook and it's game over.

Your description sounds like him. He has blocked me after questioning his mentor. 😎

Not meaning you share his bad manners yet he tries to dissect the legalise of the Quebec Charter as a reason for not paying taxes. He was raided by authorities last year.

I blocked him. Can't stand the guy.
And from what I heard from friends who are also sovereigns - is his methods work to a point. But they work for rich people and apparently he's a shill working for the people he claims to be against.
There's more to it than just not paying taxes because you're not a person.

Did they actually convict him?

No conviction at this point to my understanding. The raid was looking to support a claim that he counseled others to not pay taxes, which is against the law it seems. 😎

you cannot give legal advice if you aren't a member of the bar.

I am so glad that you posted this today, and that I got to read it. You don't even understand how much I needed this.

Glad I was able to help.
Did you catch my radio show this evening?

No. I was so mad that I missed it. I'll have to wait for the recording link to be up. I didn't see it until after the show was already over :/

Nice post, I have these documents except for the Canadian one since I'm US however I'm sure others will appreciate that you included links too. 👍

always good to go back to the source and see where they came from. :)