United Kingdom? Really?

Dose the UK really consist of England Scotland Wales & N' Ireland?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/schedule/1/made

Article 1

1.  Article 1 of the Agreement shall be revised as follows:

(a)Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read as follows:

“1.  “Territory” means,

as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and

as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the “United Kingdom” or to “territory” in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;”.

don't forget, what's included excludes everything else?

Not sure what the goal is, but that is not the meaning of the word "includes". In any case the definition in one piece of legislation don't necessarily apply elsewhere so the point would only be arguable if trying to prove this SI was not spplicable in a specific case..

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. n Coke, 58b; Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. INCLUSIVE. Embraced; comprehended; comprehending the stated limits or extremes

That looks like an overseas case. If doesn't apply in the UK where words in general have their everyday meaning. In this context it's used to include some territories that are strictly not part of the UK, but which are included in the scope of that particular order.

However if we knew the context that might lead to more targetted discussion. For example is the idea to prove that England is not covered by a specific piece of legislation?

when you get a parcel and it includes things on a list , then anything that is not on the list is also not in the box.

I think we have to disagree on the meaning of "include",  I'm not aware of a court or tribulation decision turning on it.

But even if I was wrong the other two points remain. The words in that order don't define the term "United Kingdom", rather they define the territories covered by the order which extend to some that aren't part of the UK but which are treated as such under this order. Noting that their treatment is different. Finally even if the wording did define the term, the definition would not have any meaning outside that order.

Again I don't know what is trying to be achieved, is it an existing or forseeable dispute about matters covered by that order? Or looking for backgound material or theory for use in other contexts?

Hi guys, Come on lets ask ourselves -

Is an FICTION real ?

Is an ACT real or fictional ?

Is an FICTION an phantom in the mind of the weak believing its real ?

When you challenge any Presumption an found to be an presumption, then after that point You think its real then you are only fooling your self !!!!!

Hi FF, For me its solving the ambiguity around the word.
For example both Bouvier and some editions of Blacks Law give the 'include/exclude definition, while others do not.
I would like to see published from a gov doc where it is definitively defined .
I have not seen in legislation where the word is defined in one way throughout all legislation. ( i would be grateful if you could point to any)
The def from Bouviers legal dictionary Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58. dated 1856 ,so presumably was in use
prior to that date. (first in time,first in line ?).
It does beg the question ,'is this just more deception from legislators and the Bar Guild ?

Still can't see it ? , Keep blinking till you do !
tapnewswire.com/2024/03/image-only-18/#clip=47tqhwbslz0g

i can see it now !

Thank you for posting Lopsum, i could not see how to attach it to post

first save the image to desktop or folder , click host image in the goodf editor and upload it , then click send all

I have recently seen it stated that English is the most deceptive language on the planet.
Given the reach of ‘The Crown ‘ and the Bar Guild worldwide I am sure that statement is probably correct.

Its my belief that the Maxim Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58. is worthy of further debate.

This is my logical conclusion, no doubt others will have their own .

When you include something ,you are instantly creating a list; a thing certain.
From that point onwards the above maxim must apply ,(how can it not?) and for that reason the maxim was created. The thing certain is stated ,anything else is not ,thereby its excluded from the list.

Daveiron, in Trust Law an Contract Law when the word - inclusion - is used it automatically excludes everything else ie "to include blood relatives" is the execution on everyone else, yes it all trickery, deceit an double speak, " White man said to Iroquois man - We come in peace - Iroquois man said so why do you have an gun ? "

Here's one or two for you,

Sign here - What's the definitions for these words ?

Have this Jab any Jab its good for you - What's in it ? " they still don't know ! "

Its the Law - Which Law , Enacted by whom ? Is that public insurance bond still valid ?

"Includes" is quite a subjective word.

A special edition car may include special alloy wheels but it may also come with leather seats.

I think as consumers we make assumptions that things are included. When we buy a Coke or Fanta from KFC, does it include a straw to drink it through. Probably not, thats why we are usually given one by the cashier or we get one ourselves from near the condiments. If a straw wasnt available would we still make the purchase knowing that we were drinking from a flimsy paper cup with ice cubes bashing against our nose.

I understand that Trust and Contract Law has to be more specific, but why then do companies use common phrases like: "Batteries NOT included", "Service charge NOT included", "VAT NOT included". Maybe it is just polite information or maybe its to cover their liabillity from a claimant who tries to say that they should be included.


No Fear

the truth is out there - www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6qo9HTswU

The word include has double meanings, more poignant when it’s in all capitals, and that is the same for many words in the English language & maybe other languages here and there, however, the English language was constructed by the various individuals who are in the same ‘tribe’ & who control the system across the realm, to deceive and control the populations in general, again at what point this occurred is not easy to pin down, bearing in mind that all of our history has been distorted and indeed completely made up in places, the point is that the English language operates in double-speak or gobbledygook, foreign language, and this is known as legalese.

So when the word include is used in its normal usage as in English plain and simple it is explained thus; 1. Comprise [notice the word comprise] or reckon in as part of a whole.
2. If we include (six members, including the chairman.)  3. Treat or regard as so comprised (notice the word comprise again). 4. As included adj.  shut in; enclosed. Include out or specifically exclude, as in (claudere shut).  

So we can see at number four it is touching on the double-speak and was constructed that way so that it could be used within legalese to deceive with the aim of subjugating the people and their land.

The word comprise is used to show what countries make up the United Kingdom,
if you search for the countries that make up United Kingdom the articles will use the word comprise, or made up of, or other such terminology, rarely if at all will the word ‘include’ be used, unless it is from a legalese perspective, and if you realise that any country that is included means that all others are excluded you begin to see the deceit behind it all.  

The lands of this realm are under an International Trusteeship system, and this trust system they say was established by the United Nations in 1945 we are told, however, the system has in my opinion been long established but has merely fallen under different headings, such as Roman Empire, which many believe is still in operation, irrespective of whether that is the case, it is clear that the Vatican, London (which is 2 cities each with its own Mayor and police force), and Washington DC, and as many know all of these cities are countries within themselves, and therefore not included in the ‘named’ land mass in which they sit, or vice versa!

The way that all countries are operated is by International Law, and the lands are put under various headings and groups in order to be able to subjugate the people in each of these countries; they have to do that imo as it is the only way that they can get away with the daily trespass of our inalienable Creator given rights as trustees/beneficiaries of the land and re-sources of the earth.

They are able to govern and control in countries because the countries stated as ‘included’ in each country’s ‘Interpretations Acts’ are not in fact the landmass in which the people stand, not on paper, so when you become a citizen of which ever country you were born in/on you have agreed albeit unknowingly to be governed by a foreign invader, an occupier, and some would say this is how they enact unlawful ‘emergency powers’ – and apparently the USA (and potentially other countries) still operates under such, whereby they can abuse the people even more so than they already do under such powers, as we have seen over the past few years!

Blacks Law 4th ed.
INCLUDE. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, keep within). To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve

‘Legalese, legalese is a separation of words in the English language, into one of three juries’


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za1cyx0FGeQ – Romily Stewart


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2weD_-q5HU – Adrian talking with Sui Generis, it’s a long talk however the individual who calls himself Sui Generis is very knowledgeable imo on the deceit that is being perpetrated.

Apologies for the epistle;)

You should never forget - Something similar is not the same, ask for the definitions. Then you know where you stand, if they don't give you these You have every right to bring an fraud case against them ! Same goes for ID - insurance bond - etc - etc

badvoc wrote:Daveiron, in Trust Law an Contract Law when the word - inclusion - is used it automatically excludes everything else ie "to include blood relatives" is the execution on everyone else, yes it all trickery, deceit an double speak,   " White man said to Iroquois man - We come in peace - Iroquois man said so why do you have an gun ? "

That should read in both contract and commercial law as it is in both.

Code:

Lets try another one.
Search for the legal definition
Suffer: To admit, allow, or permit. The term suffer is used to convey the idea of Acquiescence ,
then look at the same search results supplied by Law firms,More confirmation of the Bar Guild members to distort and corrupt for their own ends.

A more essential question would be - Why do people hold these people / system / words "spell binding" , in such high esteem, when in-fact they have no honour or morels ,

The answer is simple with any contracts and remember they are my speciality.
When I get them with ambiguity the answer is simple and I adopt two approaches and ask the following questions in writing:

Is this contract written in plain English?

If not can you clearly define the following words in the context they are given in?

This removes any ambiguity and any words with double meanings and puts them in the true context they are meant in as this is for good reason, any word is open to interpretation and a written word can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 people and if they clearly state their meaning and definition you are not interpreting or misinterpreting words.

Words on their own are an inanimate object and until they are defined or put into a specific context they are inert and is one of the reasons I hate certain elements of black people claiming to be offended by the word "NIGGER" when it it not defined or given context, similarly the word WOG as this is an abbreviation of Wealthy Oriental Gentleman and nothing to do with black people and automatically you know that individual is attempting to use the word in their warped definitin and context for their own personal agenda.

daveiron wrote:Lets try another one.
Search for the legal definition
Suffer: To admit, allow, or permit. The term suffer is used to convey the idea of Acquiescence ,
then look at the same search results supplied by Law firms,More confirmation of the Bar Guild members to distort and corrupt for their own ends.  

I would change that to LAWFUL DEFINITION Dave.