Here is how the deception starts.
The 'modern' definition for occupier is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occupier
World English Dictionary
occupier (ˈɒkjʊˌpaɪə)
— n
1. ( Brit ) a person who is in possession or occupation of a house or land
2. a person or thing that occupies
In the Pocket Oxford Dictionary from 1952 it states:
Occupier: n., person in (esp. temporary or subordinate) possession of house etc. [L. capio - take]
Now we go to a dictionary from 1756 - the first complete dictionary known to exist - the Samuel Johnson Dictionary which I have a copy of on my PC.
O'CCUPIER. [from occupy.]
1. A possessor ; one who takes into his
possession. Raleigh.
2. One who follows any employment.
Ezek.
So are any of us in possession of our property?
What is the definition of possession?
Samuel Johnson Dictionary:
POSSE'SSION. [Possession, Fr. possessio, Lat.]
The state of owning or having in
one's own hands or power.
So are we in possession? No. If we have a council house purchased on a 120 year lease we are leaseholders. If we have a mortgage we are classified as tenants (go look at your mortgage document to verify this) or mortgagees. SO, WE ARE NOT OCCUPIERS. Return the piece of garbage 'NO CONTRACT RETURN TO SENDER' OR 'No Occupier here'. (I would do 'No contract ....').
By the way, the reason I go to earlier dictionaries or usage is that the deception is not really there in the fact that the definitions are pretty accurate in how the words are really used. The deception is found by how many times the definition of a word is changed. We are on Blacks Law 9th Edition. Ever wonder why? Maybe to do with the fact that the liars er lawyers want to put one over on you?
Now what is a 'person' legally speaking?
Well, this is more convoluted to figure out as you have to understand one thing first. Which type of definition is being talked about here? On the front of the envelope it states in big purple letters 'Your census response is required by law'. It is required by LAW. [Emphasis added].
So the only definition that we are interested in is the jurisprudence definition or, in other words, the definition that is used in the LEGAL SYSTEM ONLY.
So we can go to Black's Law 2nd edition as our first stop ( http://matrixfiles.com/Blacks/P/p0895.jpg
We look at the - Artificial Persons definition - which is: Such as are created and devised by law for the purposes of society and government called "corporations" or "bodies politic".
Under the law we are NOT natural persons. It is very clear in this. We are, under law, Artificial Persons. Says it right there.
Now which is the language of Diplomacy? French. So when we go to a French and English dictionary the deception is more clear. In our house we have a Harrap's New Shorter French and English dictionary from 1967.
We go to the French definition for 'person' and find 'personne' and we look for the jurisprudence definition (Jur.) and we hit the jackpot: Word for word it says:
---
Jur: P. morale, civile, juridique, body corporate, corporate body; artificial person; corporation, legal entity. (Here 'P.' means 'personne')
----
The Samuel Johnson dictionary does not have a jurisprudence definition of person.
When we go to Bouviers 1856 edition ( http://matrixfiles.com/Bouviers/bouvier.htm) we find a lot of interesting definitions (more deception):
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. [Emphasis added] Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164. [emphasis added]
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178. (note: it says 'persons' not 'person')
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
(more modern law dictionaries will have clearer(?) definitions)
IT IS VERY DANGEROUS to use LEGAL definitions to fall back on. I only provided you with these examples to show the deception being foisted on people.
Jerry Kirk has some very interesting information on all this and I am studying his course at the moment.
His course is found here and is completely free of charge: http://matrixfiles.com/JerryKirk/
If you go to week 7 and read his pdf and listen to the audio for that week you will find all the information you need to be very clear on what is going on here with this census. (You are being treated as an artificial entity or slave; welcome to the plantation)
Specifically go to page 11. You will find this at the top of the page:
DECLARATION OF INHABITANCE: Clarity of content (Reading)
Resident vs Inhabitant, Person vs People; so who cares?
"... neither doth God (The Totally Aware One - THE FATHER) respect any person: ..." - II Samuel 14:14
"... though shalt not respect persons, ..." Deut. 16:19.
"... right of the people to keep and bear arms ..." - Amend. II, U.S.C (United States Constitution)
"... All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ..." - Amend. XIV U.S.C
Notice in Amend. II - 'people' and in Amend. XIV - 'person'? ........
So we HAVE to understand that the deception is being done on us with words that can land us into TROUBLE because we do not comprehend or know the words that we are reading according to the definition being used in the legal sense, nor the game that is being played out here. KNOW your standing. Are you under the laws of man or satan (in Jerry's words) or under the laws of the heavenly father (again Jerry's words which I go along with to a degee because I have been living according to the higher law although I have not recognised it as such)? You can't live under both. Choose which you want to be under.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK, and have fun
