web
		counter

 Will you agree to be a ‘natural person?’ 

ABSTRACT: A new website, my Gov, requires that you be a ‘natural person’ to access Australian government services online. What is a ‘natural person?’ Is it defined, or simply two words assembled to construe a particular meaning for some nefarious purpose? Will you agree be a ‘natural person’, or not?

A new Australian Government website, myGov, under the Department of Human Services, claims to offer a fast, simple way to access government services online. The growing range of member services includes: Medicare, Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink, Australian JobSearch, My Health Record, My Aged Care, Child Support, and others. Conditionally, “You will need to be a ‘natural person’ to access or seek to access myGov, or a Member Service.”

What is a ‘natural person?’ That question was answered in my article of January 2014 entitled “If a ‘Person’ is a Legal Entity, What’s Your Real Identity?” The conclusion was unmistakable; ‘Person’ means a Legal Entity, a corporate construct assigned by a legal name to a flesh and blood living human being whose given name sounds identical.

New questions arise

Why is the word ‘natural,’ i.e. of ‘nature,’ now to be bonded to a legal fictional of corporate construct? Is some ulterior motive in play? What purpose is served? Who benefits?

Why must  Australians affirmatively agree to be ‘natural persons?’

Let’s get to the root of the matter!

Since the Taxation Office falls under the umbrella of myGov, and there is no definition of ‘person’ in the taxation legislation, and no definition of ‘natural person’ on the myGov website, what then? What, exactly, are Aussies committing to, when nothing on the myGov website, defines what a ‘natural person’ really is.

The Australian Acts Interpretation Act (AIA – 1901)

For such circumstance as just described, or where Australian ACTS, have no express definition, a ‘person’ means what the Australian Acts Interpretation Act (1901) (AIA) says that a person is. 

Does the AIA define what a person is? Or, does it say, that a person is, (e.g. A + B +C), based on its ‘interpretation?’

Here’s the burning question. If ‘natural’ is singularly definitive, and ‘person’ is singularly definitive, could it be that ‘natural person’ is A + B, and possibly C in addition?

Why not? Nothing has to be defined by the AIA, does it? Hasn’t it only to say that it is, not what it is?

Nuts and Bolts

I’ll first quote clauses from the AIA, then examine their implications. 

  • SECT 2B of the AIA, states “individual" means a natural person. "Person" includes a body politic and a body corporate” (this being the formal term for a corporation.)
  • SECT 24AA  of the AIA states: “In an Act, a reference to a person generally includes a reference to a body politic and body corporate as well as an individual.”
  • Section 2C(1) of the AIA states: “In any Act, expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.”

The last two clauses end with the words ”as well as an individual.” Question: What do the words “as well as” actually mean? Does that phrase mean that (the legalities of ‘person,’) are ’additional to,’ or, ‘inclusive of’—an individual? The first clause answers that question doesn’t it? It states that "individual" means a natural person

It’s not rocket science, is it? The independence of your living being (ILB), the singularity of your flesh and blood being has now been assigned to mean ‘person;’ wherein the word ‘mean’ is all inclusive. SECT 2B does not state that an individual is a natural person, i.e. by definition. It states "individual" means a natural person. ‘Individual’ is construed so to be.

One’s singular natural being is stripped of its individuality, its true nature, and construed as an inseparable duality of legal conformity, with nature. The irony is, that legal conformity rules over nature, yet utterly depends on its participation for survival. Irony, or insanity?

Whose need exactly?

Lets go back “You will need to be a ‘natural person’ to access, or seek to access myGov.”

Do you have need to be, or does government have need that you be?

What exactly does ‘alleged authority’ have need of?

  1. Does it need your agreement to be a natural unique living being (ULB), independently separate and detached from all assigned legalities? (Impossible. That’s what you are already!)
  2. Does it need your agreement to be a legal entity independently separate and detached from all that is your flesh and blood nature? 
  3. Does it need for your natural, precious, independent living being (ILB), to willingly abandon your life-giving independence and agree to be bound by all assigned legalities thereafter?

Isn’t it “as plain as mud on your face,” as Aussies are known to say? “Blind Billy could pick it.”

Individual, person, natural person, body politic, body corporate (corporation) plus party, someone, anyone, no-one, one, another and whoever have all been stitched together in one neat (legal) bundle. Isn't that what the 3 (AIA) clauses above really mean?

Their benefit or yours?

If it is interpreted to be necessary that you function as a legal entity, and you agree, thus bowing to the title of ‘natural person,’ then for what, or whose purpose? Theirs or yours? Did Creator forget something in your nature? What natural law was omitted from your being? Do you need more than what you have, in order to live?

I suspect you know the answer to those questions.

If you do not grasp that some nefarious purpose insists you agree to be a ‘natural person,’ meaning if you don’t ‘get it,’ then, sure as hell, they have got you!

Can it be explained more clearly?

Your consent – your consequence

Agree to be a ‘natural person’ and you’ve consented to be ruled by others, as their slave. Alleged authority’s greatest weapon, necessary to maintain domination and control, is your mind; your consent. Fraud is the forcing of ‘personage.’ Your consent is sought to overcome such a charge. Fraud is also the legal creation of ‘personage.’ Your consent is your approval for that fraud to continue. Evil seeks your approval, so that it can be exonerated. Is evil what you want? Is evil the world you want for your children? 

Tick the box and thenceforth, every plea submitted, every supplication, affidavit or defence one may submit, every free-man, libertarian or common law supplication that protests Mans unique individuality as a living, breathing, human being, endorses and exacerbates their fraud, their crimes, and your fate at their hand.

Every natural law ‘right to life’ your Creator endowed, is overruled by your consent. Every subsequent protest is foreclosed.

myGov states, “You may close your myGov account at any time,” but will that cancel your consent?

myGov is theirs, not yours, most surely? Why do you think they chose that title?

Can you pronounce the word boycott?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

POSTSCRIPT: Subsequent to drafting the above article, my thoughts turned to its wider implications, and what we as innocent humans can do to extract ourselves from this harmful, criminal malaise that besets almost everyone (sorry about that word) consistently, to a greater or lesser degree.  My answer is found on this section, of this website.

Previous comments carried over from the former “Absentlimits” website.

jasa website· 12 weeks ago

Articles and comment for the best content

free apps· 4 days ago

I think quality content will matter more- but that means being innovative and creative. No shortcuts around quality either. Extensive posts, better illustrations, different and motivating content formats. And one can find those all qualities on your article so keep it up.

© Ken Bartle 2016