Love for Life

4 Tricks of Government

The Many Tricks of Government

Keeping in mind that government statues, act, bylaws, etc, only apply to government employees (those who have volunteered themselves to be of the law society or an extension thereof), that they cannot ever extend to the The People, that likely it's no better to be defined as a natural person than a person, and that the United Nations is full of doo doo, these two articles are still very good.

The 4 Tricks of Government

Learning to be Word Wise

The governments can be very "tricky" in their wording of things. Something to make yourself aware of and wise to very quickly if you want to gain the upper hand. Armed with the information here, all American visitors are challenged to search their own laws and see how much of the data provided here applies to them in their country - as well as all other western nations. Only by searching out the truth of the laws and your original rights and freedoms yourselves, will you be empowered to protect your 'natural person' as a human-being.

Here's 4 tricks outlined below:

FIRST TRICK:

The first "trick" of the government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute(Act). They(the government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law: A 'natural-person' is a man or woman, created by God.

An 'artificial-person' is a corporation, created by Man.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, 3rd edition: natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties. artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties my be attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity"(ie ability) for rights and duties, but not necassarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached(ie assigned) by laws.

SECOND TRICK:

The second "trick" of the government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been re-defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically they are defined as follow:

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means a natural-person.
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
PERSON means a corporation(an artificial-person).
from the Income Tax Act we find that:
INDIVIDUAL means an artificial person.
PERSON means an artificial person(amongst other things)

In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how INDIVIDUAL and PERSON are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.

THIRD TRICK:

The third "trick" of the government is to use the word "includes" in definitions instead of using the word "means". They do this in some
critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. If they used "means" instead of "includes" then their deception would be exposed, but by using "includes" they rely upon the reader to assume that "includes" expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that "means" restricts the definition.

Here is a "means" definition of the word "person" from the Bank Act:
PERSON "means" a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Here is an 'includes' definition of the word "person" from the Interpretation Act: PERSON, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'includes' a corporation.

To expose their deception, substitute the word 'means' and you have PERSON, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, 'means' a corporation.(viz-artificial-person)

Both "means" & "includes" are restrictive in scope because they only encompass a part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form: person 'means' A or B or C(and nothing else) person 'includes' A and B and C(and nothing else) There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of "includes": Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius... The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

The definition of the word "include" is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.

FOURTH TRICK:

The fourth "trick" of the government is to modify how the word "includes" is used in order to make an EXPANSION in the definition when such expansion is required. This "trick" helps add confusion to the use of "includes" convincing the readers that "includes" is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:

also includes
and includes
includes, without limitation
including
the expansive definitions usually take the following form:
PERSON means A or B or C and includes D.

DEFINITIONS:

Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for "include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next 'source' for the definitions.From Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, here is the definition for the word "include": include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. including. may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of 'and' or 'in addition to', or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used.inc-
lose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence; or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb INCLUDE only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, INCLUDING(but not limited to) enlarges the scope. When used in a definition, INCLUDE does not expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to confuse because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume INCLUDE means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word.

Our assumptions fail us in this case. From now on, when you see the word INCLUDES, mentally substitute the word MEANS and you will not be "tricked" by this definition anymore.

FOR THE DOUBTING THOMAS:

If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word INCLUDES and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word, the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word.

Today we live in a world where we are told that our fundamental rights still exist, but there are times when we wonder how this can be so. For example, we can have the full force of the law brought down upon us with a traffic violation, income tax regularity, refusing to fill in census forms, etc. These offences do no harm to another human being and in no way violate any individuals fundamental rights and freedoms, so we ask "how can this be?"

The answer is that your fundamental rights and freedoms are still intact as a natural-person, but you have been tricked into believing that you have to follow the Laws created for the artificial-person. Following the Second World War, the United Nations Assembly prepared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." I have never seen this done in any school. Have you?

In order to impliment SLAVERY of it's citizens and control them according to its whim, the government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the government to "own" everything produced or gained by its citizens.The technique used by the government was to create a CORPORATION for every human-being in Canada.

As creator of a CORPORATION, the government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a corporation does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by it creators and the corporation must obey its creator. These corporations must then have a business number and so one is assigned to each PERSON it creates.

Such a number is called a S.I.N.(Slave Identification Number aka Social Insurance Number) Finally, the government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, BankAccounts, Citizenship Cards, Passports, etc. In the 'Income Tax Act', the government just decrees that John Doe is the legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only contract involved in the annual Income Tax Return(yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year.

Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is an Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation and must therefore follow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE.

Hence the confusion sets in because John Doe believes that he is JOHN DOE and therefore has to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the government and its officials.

CAPITALIZATION:

There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of "persons";

1. human-being: john doe
2. natural-person: John Doe
3. quasi natural/artificial-person: John DOE
4. corporation/artificial-person: JOHN DOE
5. Nomme de Guerre: DOE, JOHN

Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above "persons":
The 'human-being' has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by GOD.

The 'natural-person' has all the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta and Canadian Bill of Rights.

The 'quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights, but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.

The 'corporation/artificial-person' has limited rights and freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.

The' Nomme de Guerre has no rights and freedoms and is a complete slave to the Admiral.

There is so much more than what I have just shared here. It is only the tip of the iceberg. But it is also enough to make you aware of what you are up against and the deceptions built into our system of rule by governments. Somethings to think about. I have no ID, no drivers license, no passport, no bank accounts, no address. I AM, a human being. I require no such things. Free yourselves now. your humble servant, ancient clown

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message497410/pg1

http://www.nettwerked.net/K-1ine_50.txt

24 October, 2006

Further reading while keeping in mind that statutes, act bylaw etc only apply to the government/law society and those who choose to work for it or by extension (SIN number) and that so called natural persons do not necessarily operate with all God given rights. :

Paradigm Education Group - An exploration of the scam which is income tax:
www.naturalperson.com

Natural-Person - A non-profit site educating Canadians and Americans about the differences between human-beings, natural-persons, and artificial-persons. How the Government created your new identity and how you can reclaim your unalienable rights:
www.natural-person.ca

DetaxCanada - Income Tax is slavery:
www.detaxcanada.org

Hack Canada - Freedom, privacy, hacking, phreaking, ...
www.hackcanada.com

---------------------------------------------------------

Government Tricks:

This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.
http://www.natural-person.ca/govtricks.html

First Trick:

The first 'trick' of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to presume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law:

A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Second Trick:

The second 'trick' of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.

Third Trick:

The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein.

Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes:

Basic Form: subject means objects;

Effect:

1. means implies a substitution of words.
2. means creates a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
4. the objects need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.

Example from the Bank Act:

"person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;

Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act:

Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person.

Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes:

Basic Form: subject includes players;

Effect:

1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject.
2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject needs to be pre-defined.
4. the players need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective.
6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject.
7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Income Tax Act:

"employee" includes officer;
"corporation" includes an incorporated company;
"insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy;
"taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;
"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity's taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;

Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:

An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.

An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.

A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.

A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).

A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.

Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:

Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;

Effect:

1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
4. the players need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.

Example from the Interpretation Act:

"province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;

Interpretation of the above Example from the Interpretation Act:

Any pre-existing definition for "province" is substituted with "a province of Canada", and any of the players (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) may play the role of a province, but not vice versa. For example, any province may not play the role of Nunavut.

The use of the word includes is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights. Now that includes is no longer believed to be restrictive, you have to look eslewhere in the statutes to find out where your rights, as a natural person, are preserved. Your rights will be upheld somewhere, you just have to find out where.

Fourth Trick:

The fourth 'trick' is directly attributable to a defect in the English language in respect of the verb 'to be'. In the English language there are many different meanings of the verb 'to be' and the reader/listener may misinterpret the intended (or 'trick') meaning and thereby draw the wrong conclusion from its use.

The two different and distinct meanings of the verb 'to be' which concern us are: the one meaning which relates to the essence of the subject (such as the table is made of wood; he is strong) and the other meaning which relates to a temporary location or position (such as the table is over there; he is a swimmer).

To be succinct, the two relevant meanings of interest, in this 'trick', may be summarized by the following simple definition:

-to be, means 'to have the essence of, to exist or live' (in the sense of essence), or 'to occupy a place or position' (in the sense of location or position).

By the way, the noun 'essence' requires the helper verb 'to have'. Be careful with 'exist' because an artificial person can 'exist' on a piece of paper somewhere in a file, but an artifical person cannot exist as 'living'.

Now to utilize the Fourth Trick associated with 'to be', a judge may make a ruling as follows:

"a natural person is a taxpayer", or "a natural person is a driver"

which immediately translates into the valid conclusion, with regard to occupying a position (because someone has to do the paperwork), that:

"a natural person occupies the position of a taxpayer"

However, a judge cannot make a ruling that:

'a natural person has the essence of a taxpayer'
'a natural person lives as a taxpayer'

because human rights are immediately violated and slavery woud be condoned by the judge.

The conclusion, in respect of the Fourth Trick, is to be careful when reading the word "is" and check for 'essence' or 'location'. What you think you read may not be in fact what you really read.

You can very quickly get clarification by asking: "When you say is, do you mean occupies a position, or do you mean has the essence of (lives as)?" With this question you will immediately expose any 'trick' which is being utilized.

Spanish is one of the few languages which has maintained a distinction by having two separate verbs; the verb 'ser', derived from the Latin 'esse' (English 'essence'), is used 'to have essence'; and the verb 'estar', derived from the Latin 'stare' (English 'state'), is used for a 'temporary location or position'.

Fifth Trick:

The fifth 'trick' is for the benefit ouf our American readers. It relates to the definition of the term National Security and the use of that term as an excuse to hide information from the public. In fact, it appears that the term National Security really means 'to protect the government structure and its operatives', and has nothing to do with protecting the American people themselves, as they mistakenly believe.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Another trick I've found it the use of the word "power" to make us believe that they have any authority to do anything, even within their own circles.

Things seem to be something like this with how things have been hijacked:

God's Law.................................................vs..................admiralty (law of the sea - corporate, commerce)
Sovereign authority(people)..............................vs..................artificial entities (corporations)
Government based on sovereign authority...........vs..................corporate governments of defacto power
Constitution................................................vs.................. Military constitution (de facto war powers)
Inhabitant/Freeman.......................................vs...................Canadian citizen or 14th amendment citizen
Electors elect independant representatives...........vs................voting in a two or more party corporate system
Inhabitants...............................................vs......................citizens/residents/persons (diminished political status)
Political Rights...........................................vs.......................privileges, civil rights (ie: no protected rights)
Unalienable Rights under God........................vs...................... inalienable civil rights (not protected)
Full liability / bonding..................................vs........................limited liability
Breaking the law........................................vs........................breaching the peace (thought crime)
Judge......................................................vs.........................quasi-judge
Magistrate................................................vs........................justice of the peace
Sheriffs and deputies..................................vs.........................Chief of Police (COP), Peace officers (POLICE = POLICy Enforcer)
Affidavit of injured party..............................vs........................complaint of police officer (may not be an injured party)
First hand knowledge of crime committed.............vs...................belief of a statute breached
Hearing: determine probable cause.....................vs.................. hearing: determine date of trial
Probable cause determined by magistrate............vs...................reasonably believe determined by prosecutor
Judicial.....................................................vs.......................quasi-judicial
Judge signs writ.........................................vs........................clerk or registrar signs order
Grand Jury discusses evidence........................vs......................ex-parte discussion between prosecutor and judge on charge to be laid
Writ of Indictment........................................vs......................information (hearsay indictment or summary offence)
Consent not needed to try.............................vs......................understanding and consent of accused needed to be prosecuted
Court clerk holds record.................................vs.......................prosecutor holds negotiable instrument (charge) - no official court record
Jury Nullification to determine law and facts........vs.....................No jury nullification
Lawsuit determining law and facts.....................vs...................."lawsuit" determining facts and damage only

Update:
Lawful government .............................. ........................................ De facto government
God's Law........................................... .........................................Admiralty (law of the sea - corporate POLICY).
Sovereign authority(people)............................ ................................Artificial entities (corporations).
Government based on sovereign authority.............. ...........................Corporate governments of defacto power or pretended authority.
Organic Constitution............................... ......................................Corporate Military Constitution acting on the 14th amendment citizen.
Missing 13th amendment preventing BAR attorneys............. ............... Original 13th amendment 'disappears' - BAR attorneys perpetrate de facto fraud
State Public Acts that are constitutional and bonded................. .........Unbonded federal ghost statutes not needing injured party.
Electors elect independant representatives.......................... ..............Voting in a two or more party corporate system.
Inhabitants.............................. ....................................................citizens/residents/persons (diminished political status).
Political Rights........................... ...................................................Privileges, civil rights (ie: no protected rights).
Unalienable Rights under God...................................... .....................Inalienable civil rights (not protected).
Claim of Right.................................................. .............................Color of right.
Ownership.................................... ...............................................Color of right to possession by 'law'.
Full liability for actions............................ ........................................Limited liability ponzi scheme (Social Insurance/Security).
Breaking the law............................... ............................................Breaching the peace (basis of thought crime).
No conflict of interest...................................... ...............................Fed pays salary of judge, prosecutor and POLICE.
Courts are public..................................... .......................................Courts can be private.
Judge.................................................. .........................................Quasi-judge.
Judicial................................................... ......................................Quasi-judicial.
Magistrate (only determines probable cause)........................ ...............Justice of the peace.
Lawyer.................................................... .....................................Attorney at BAR.
Sheriffs and deputies.................................. ....................................Chief of Police (COP), Peace officers (POLICE = POLICy Enforcer).
Affidavit complaint of injured party under oath or affirmation.......... .........Complaint of police officer (may not be an injured party).
First hand knowledge of an injured party crime...................... ...............Belief only of a 'crime' committed against corporate statute/by-laws.
Complaints must be presented to a magistrate................... ..................Complaints are given to attorney.
Cannot be held without a valid warrant entered into record............. ........Colorable 'warrant' is signed by clerk!!!, not magistrate.
Hearing: determine probable cause.................................... .................Railroad Hearing: determine date of trial only.
Evidentiary hearing with accused present - can question charges.......... ...Ex parte communication between quasi-judge and prosecutor.
Probable cause to determine sufficiency of allegation................... ..........'Reasonably Believe' a 'crime' was committed.
Criminal complaint becomes valid with finding of probable cause........ ........No probable cause given to complaint.
Magistrate makes decision on probable cause.......................... ..............Prosecuting attorney prepares an 'information' from complaint.
Magistrate must sign warrant to hold.......................... ........................**Attorney receives 'decision on reasonable belief' from
Clerk of the court receives 'accusation' from magistrate................. ..............quasi-judge without accused being present**
Prosecuting attorney can get court record from clerk to prepare 'information'.. ...Clerk or Registrar signs 'warrant'!!!
Habeas corpus can be presented to question nature and cause of charge..... .....No Habeas Corpus
Grand jury gets involved only after valid warrant signed by a judge........ ........Grand jury involved only with prosecutor or clerk involved.
Clerk gives criminal complaint and 'information' to grand jury............... .........Prosecuting attorney presents 'information' before G.J.
Grand Jury discusses allegation and evidence............... .................................(it's hearsay to prosecute without a criminal complaint ................................................................................................ who's validity is verified and based on probable cause).

Grand jury votes on criminal accusations ........................... ...............Grand jury votes on 'informations' that haven't been in the court record ..................................................................................................and have no valid criminal complaint determined to have probable cause.
Grand Jury reads true bill indictments in open court to court clerk.......... ......Grand jury has their own appointed clerk.
Grand jury gives true bill information back to the prosecuting attorney........ ...Prosecuting attorney is returned his 'information' as true bill.
Prosecutor is to prepare an indictment from the true bill information....... .......Defective indictment filed based only on the 'information'.
Minutes kept on the record in protection of clerk of the court.......... ..........'Record' is kept in possession of the attorney (no official record may even exist).

Indictment filed by prosecutor based on criminal complaint and 'information'..... ...Indictment or misdemenor filed based only on a hearsay 'information' ................................................................................................-no valid criminal complaint ever received or probable cause determined).
Consent not needed to try........................... ................................ Understanding and consent of accused needed to be prosecuted.
Court clerk holds record.......................... ......................................The first thing clerk receives is the hearsay indictment information.
No negotiable instruments................................. ............................Informations and Warrants/Prisoner Bonds are negotiable instruments..
Jury Nullification (juries try validity of the law, and the facts of case)..................... ...................Juries aren't instructed to try the law
Lawsuit questioning law and facts.............................. ........................................"lawsuit" of facts and damage only.

Link to where this article was found: http://sites.google.com/site/freemanonthelandproject/4-tricks-of-governm...