:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

includes and including

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Dennisl
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 8
Joined: Sunday February 1st, 2009 1:21 pm MST

includes and including

Postby Dennisl » Saturday February 14th, 2009 10:40 am MST

Hello All
In order to understand the Law you have to understand the words. Could someone point me in the direction of where I could get a clear understanding of words like ---includes and individual.

Thanks, Dennisl.

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Citizensoldier » Sunday February 15th, 2009 11:21 am MST

DennisL,
It depends on the context of how those words are used in the law. If those words have a specific definition given to them in a specific statute or section, then they would be defined as such in that specific statute or section (unless further changed in another subsection). Absent a specific definition provided in the statute, they would be used in their general context as that word was commonly understood at the time said statute was enacted.

Dennisl
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 8
Joined: Sunday February 1st, 2009 1:21 pm MST

Re: includes and including

Postby Dennisl » Sunday February 15th, 2009 12:29 pm MST

Thanks...
But what I was after was their meaning when used in a definition....like
The term state when used in this ACT includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.

and
The term person when use in this title includes individual, corporation, association,partnership......

Does the word includes add the things listed to a preconceived understanding of what the word means "or" are the things listed the only things that apply. I myself read it as "only those things listed apply"
but when you try to introduce other people to the information, in my experience at least, they jump on this and want to interpret the definition as enlarging something known. So I was hoping for a good explanation from somewhere that would nail this down.........

Dennis.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Admin » Wednesday February 18th, 2009 1:08 am MST

:h: Dennis:
To understand definition you must first understand The Cardinal Rule of Definitions. With that people often still come back and ask questions like yours and the correct answer was actually provided by, Citizensoldier.
More distinctly, to know the definition of a word, you must go to the author of its use and learn it from them.

You gave a couple of semi-specific example definitions; “state” and “person”; but you failed to show the specific citation where those definitions were from, without which, it is impossible to answer your question. Each sample contained a phrase similar to, “…when used in this ACT…”, which is a clue that the controls to the use of such definitions are found in the code where those definitions are found.
Again Citizensoldier correctly wrote:It depends on the context …

For example, your initial question asked about the use or application of the word “includes”. And if we turn to the context of the tax code definitions where
At United States Code Title 26 § 7701, Congress wrote:Definitions:
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(c) Includes and including
The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
(blue color added for emphasis)
Thus, as noted in the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions, the context of the code defines the use of the terms defined.

Again, because Team Law does not do your work for you; rather, we help you learn how to do the work right; we will not lookup any more words for you. Still, if you follow these rules and examples, we are certain that you should now know how to find them for yourself from your own research. Even more importantly, by following this information, you will know when others take such definitions out of context to sway you—you will recognize the deception.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Dennisl
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 8
Joined: Sunday February 1st, 2009 1:21 pm MST

Re: includes and including

Postby Dennisl » Tuesday February 24th, 2009 5:08 pm MST

Hello Again…
Let me be clear, I feel like there is something very wrong with our government I have listened to lies and half-truths all my life. I have 2 kids that are very dear to me and it’s real important to me that, if I can, I leave the place (United States) in better shape than what was given to me. At the end of each day my hands and my back are sore because I refuse to let someone else do the "work" for me. I'm here; I'm asking questions because I want to understand. I have Black's Law dictionary, I did not ask someone to look up a word for me in my original post I had hoped that someone what put me on the trail of information that would clear it up for me. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth nor was I afforded the opportunity to learn "legalese" in school. So if I have this right your goal is to get people to go read the SS Act of 1935, realize they don't understand it then come back to Team Law and pay for the information needed to understand. Thanks; but, No thanks. Smells like a late night infomercial to me.[hr][/hr] :h: Inserted by Admin:
We do not know where you got the idea that Team Law has any such fees, charges or required payments. A review of our system plainly shows your opinion of that matter is incorrect

Our response to the rest of this post (from its beginning) is as follows:
The thing you are referring to as “our government” is not our government. As we have shown, it is a private foreign corporation. To get a better review of that point we suggest you might want to review our presentation of: Myth 22.
The question you started this topical thread with was correctly answered. We pointed you both to our The Cardinal Rule of Definitions (which should help you better understand how to use any dictionary) and to an example of a statutory definition that clearly presented how the words you asked about, “includes and including” are used in the tax code; then we showed you that you can only know the actual intended meaning of any word or phrase in any common usage situation by knowing what the author intended by the context or by clarification from the author; which, others confirmed. Thus, we can neither comprehend how you could imagine that we did not directly provide the exact answer to your question, nor understand how anything we presented could have been used to inspire your apparent negative impression. Still, we hope you will reconsider such thoughts and again begin to take what we presented in the light in which it was given—a good faith effort to help you.
:t^:

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Citizensoldier » Tuesday February 24th, 2009 5:42 pm MST

DennisL,
Let's take a step back and review what Team Law’s purpose is. It is to help people understand how to learn the law and then how to apply what they learn. They help you learn - not do the work for you. Why? So you gain a testimony of the truth - stop having to rely on someone else's testimony. Can you go into court only armed with what someone told you include and including meant in a certain statutory application? Not if you want to prevail. More importantly, can someone deceive you in applying the law if you actually understand it from your own personal first hand reading and study of the law itself? Not likely. Hence, we're back to the very purpose of Team Law.
As far as paying for services from Team Law, I am not aware of any such paid services being offered. I can attest that I do not nor have I ever paid Team Law for any such services.

Dennisl
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 8
Joined: Sunday February 1st, 2009 1:21 pm MST

Re: includes and including

Postby Dennisl » Tuesday February 24th, 2009 9:13 pm MST

Hello again
Am I missing something?
Look, this is the way I see it. All over this forum it is strongly advised suggested that people go and find out for themselves what the nature of the relationship is between them and the SSA. It is implied that Team Law will help up to the point that it gets personal or, I assume, it appears that the patron is just lazy. In either case I couldn't agree more. The beneficiary program is styled (seems to me) such that when the "light bulb" get turned on for them they respond with a donation that helps Team Law brighten other peoples light bulb. This also seems more than fair. I could care less about the money it's being taken for a fool that bothers me. Yes, Corp. US and a deeply rooted relationship through the SSA and the relationships with the corp. state, fit perfectly with the real world events of today. But I was hoping that Team Law could help me prove to myself just one.[hr][/hr] :h: Inserted by Admin:
Though we appreciate your opinion of how Team Law works comes from your lack of experience with us and not from the facts, we suggest you might want to clarify that opinion with a review of the following article: How do I join Team Law?
:t^:

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Citizensoldier » Tuesday February 24th, 2009 11:09 pm MST

DennisL,
I (as well as Team Law) have already pointed you in the right direction — you were pointed to the rules of statutory construction. It’s up to you to apply them to the specific statutory matters you are interested in understanding. If you are looking for an educational review of a specific statute for a certain situation, well, that level of support is limited by Team Law’s Charter to only its beneficiaries.

Dennisl
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 8
Joined: Sunday February 1st, 2009 1:21 pm MST

Re: includes and including

Postby Dennisl » Thursday February 26th, 2009 5:59 pm MST

Hello Citizensoldier
OK I get it. It says what it says and if you know who the author is you can then understand the subject matter. That leaves me with a couple of questions.
  1. Can you provide me with couple of examples of Corp. U.S. acting like the OJ government, specifically I guess I asking for an Act that creates a department or something that specifies its authority comes from the organic Act of 1871.
  2. I see that you also are in Texas, have you discovered the Act that created the STATE OF TEXAS Corp.
I only ask because I can't seem to find it online and my schedule is kind of tight right now...

Thanks in advance
Dennis

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Citizensoldier » Thursday February 26th, 2009 6:49 pm MST

DennisL,
For number 1 - go to your local law library and look at the Statutes-At-Large for 1870s. You will more than likely find one volume for those years entitled "The Organic Laws of the U.S." (I just looked at it the other day). It will answer your question.

For number 2 - Look online at the State of Texas statutes. You will see it mentioned about the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1963 - wherein, the legislature reorganized a government. Go to the law library and seek out the statute for said act. One should not overlook the fact the the legislature was never given any authority to reorganize itself, much less the executive and judicial branches of the state. So, if they did not have authority to do such a thing, then what was actually done?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: includes and including

Postby Admin » Thursday October 14th, 2010 5:37 pm MDT

:h: Everyone:
Surfcake a Team Law beneficiary, responded to this post in the Beneficiary’s Private Forum at the following topic: Re: Includes and Including with results from his research into the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, you are invited to follow this topical thread through the link so provided: Re: Includes and Including.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest