Definitions

Definitions (Being a nerd is actually good. This is useful stuff)

defining words used in law

Defining words used in law is a crucial part of understanding what the law means for everyone, most specifically the government. It commands us with the intention of upholding our liberties. Defining words used in law brings clarity to everyone and with that clarity, civility will sustain itself within society. So let’s have a look at our roots…

Ultra Vires-Intra Vires

Ultra vires [Lat, “beyond the powers”] is used in Constitutional Law by the courts who must decide the respective competences of Parliament and provincial legislatures. If one or the other, in enacting a law, goes beyond the jurisdiction allotted to it by the constitution, the court will declare that measure ultra vires. If not, the court will declare it intra vires [Lat, “within the powers”].

These 2 expressions also apply to Administrative Law, the law of local collectivities, corporate law, etc. Many bodies, eg, municipalities, school boards and corporations, have powers delegated to them by Parliament or provincial legislatures. These delegated bodies may, within their established limits, adopt regulations which, to be valid, must not exceed the limits prescribed by law.

Constitutional law

Under constitutional law, particularly in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires; for example, although the court did not use the term in striking down a federal law in United States v. Lopez on the grounds that it exceeded the Constitutional authority of Congress, the Supreme Court still declared the law to be ultra vires.

According to Article 15.2 of the Irish constitution, the Oireachtas (parliament) is the sole lawmaking body in the Republic of Ireland. In the case of CityView Press v AnCo, however, the Irish Supreme Court held that the Oireachtas may delegate certain powers to subordinate bodies through primary legislation, so long as these delegated powers allow the delegatee only to further the principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas in primary legislation and not craft new principles or policies themselves. Any piece of primary legislation that grants the power to make public policy to a body other than the Oireachtas is unconstitutional; however, as there is a presumption in Irish constitutional law that the Oireachtas acts within the confines of the Constitution, any legislation passed by the Oireachtas must be interpreted in such a way as to be constitutionally valid where possible.

Thus, in a number of cases where bodies other than the Oireachtas were found to have used powers granted to them by primary legislation to make public policy, the impugned primary legislation was read in such a way that it would not have the effect of allowing a subordinate body to make public policy. In these cases, the primary legislation was held to be constitutional, but the subordinate or secondary legislation, which amounted to creation of public policy, was held to be ultra vires the primary legislation and was struck down.

In UK constitutional law, ultra vires describes patents, ordinances and the like enacted under the prerogative powers of the Crown that contradict statutes enacted by the King-in-Parliament. Almost unheard of in modern times, ultra vires acts by the Crown or its servants were previously a major threat to the rule of law.

Boddington v British Transport Police is an example of an appeal heard by House of Lords that contested that a bylaw was beyond the powers conferred to it under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.

in right of

  1. (law) a power held as a consequence of another power, or held as a consequence of a relationship.In right of her being president of the Board, she is also the chair of Board meetings. The husband held title to the land in right of his wife (see also jure uxoris).
  2. (law, government) jurisdiction of a person who is head of state of more than one state.The Queen of Canada in Right of Quebec is suing the Queen of Canada in Right of Newfoundland.

De Jure and De Facto

de jure: “of right”; in accordance with law

de facto: exercising power as if legally constituted or lawfully authorized

Maxims of Law tell the story…

Canada “is” founded upon common law principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. In essence, these principles are the rule of law which our courts must follow as they have over many centuries before Canada, and even America for that matter, even existed. These principles were originally written in Latin and are known as Maxims of Law. They are seen as “axioms” in law – indisputable truths. Let us share some of these principles with you:

In regards to the supremacy of God and your natural God-given rights: Lex spectat naturae ordinem means, “The law regards the order of nature”. And Jura naturae sunt immutabilia means, “The laws of nature are unchangeable”. The words nature and natural are used in regards to a man having natural rights – those rights that cannot be taken away by anyone or thing. This is Natural Law – the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms state this (as stated above). Also see unalienable rights below.

Maxims related to “consent” and/or “contracting”: Id quod nostrum est sine facto nostro ad alium transferri non potest means, “That which is ours cannot be transferred to another without our act (consent)”. And Nil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus means, “Nothing is so opposed to consent as force and fear”.

Maxims related to freedom and slavery: Omnes homines aut liberi sunt aut servi means, “All men are free men or slaves”. Clearly, this states that there is “no in between” here, you are either free or you are a slave. And Libertas omnibus rebus favorabilior est which means, “Liberty is favored over all things”. This indisputable rule of law is one that every “lawful” court must follow to ensure our liberties remain intact. We have de facto (unlawful) courts that will not operate in this fashion – this needs to change.

Maxims relating to freeing one’s self from a tyrannical system: Nihil tam naturale est, quam eo genere quidque dissolvere, quo colligatum est; ideo verborum obligatio verbis tollitur; nudi consensus obligatio contrario consensus dissolvitur means, “Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together; therefore the obligation of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent dissolved by the contrary consent”. Or more to the point, Non refert verbis an factis fit revocation which means, “It does not matter whether a revocation is made by words or by acts”. This means you can lawfully remove yourself from an unlawful system. If the people operating within that system do not recognize your position in common law and force you to do things against your will – ignoring the exercising of your God-given Natural Rights – then you are a slave!!

With the people having little knowledge of the origins of their “legal name” – the ALL CAPITAL name derived from the Birth Certificate (ask yourself what this “legal” document really is?) – they have unwittingly waived their natural God-given rights with its use. This “language” is another language outside of our “inherent” common law language. This is called DOG_LATIN and Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition defines it as: “The Latin of illiterate persons.” Capitus Diminutio Maxima means, “The highest or most comprensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights”.

Finally, Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum means, “It is a wretched state of slavery which subsists where the law is vague or uncertain”. Folks, what we have discussed here should be mandatory education in our schools. So it goes well beyond vague or uncertainty as the system we have breeds ignorance. Ask yourself, “How can we protect and preserve our freedoms if we don’t know the roots (above) of our freedoms and the basic court procedures (the tool) to preserve them?” It’s time for change people!

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
~ John F. Kennedy (See our  quotes page for further motivation)

Note: These maxims can be found in Common Law dictionaries such as Black’s and Bouvier’s. Further reading on the subjects of Maxims and Natural Law can be viewed with the following links: Maxims of Common Law and The Search for Natural Law. These 2 documents were written by a successful lawyer in the United States who sells a law course called Jurisdictionary.

“Unalienable” Defined

Unalienable: 1)The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2)Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. ~Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred~Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. ~Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ~Declaration Of Independence, 1776

“Person” Defined

“Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law.” ~Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition

“Husband and wife are considered one person in law” (Vir et uxor censentum in lege una persona ~Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

INDIVIDUAL “Under the Canadian Bill of Rights, the right of the individual extends to natural persons only, and not to corporations. ~R. v. Colgate-Palmolive Ltd. (1972), 8 C.C.C. (2d) 40 (Ont.Co.Ct.)…”

“Every person is a human being, but not every human being a person” — Omnis persona est homo, sed non vieissim.

“Man” (homo) is a term of nature; “person” (persona), a term of civil law” — Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis.

Other

Void ab initio: Void from the beginning; from the first fact. Void on its face, a nullity, without force and effect.

Actus legis nemini facit injuriam: An act of law does injury to no man.

Patriate: verb (transitive) 1. to bring under the authority of an autonomous country, for example as in the transfer of the Canadian constitution from UK to Canadian responsibility for the first time.