Jachin and Boaz as fags

[Anonymous]

Is it me or do the smokes look like the pillers?

came across this when researching the UN mandated smoking ban in HK

According to Ordinance 371

(2) No person shall smoke or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar or
pipe in a no smoking area.

Can you please define the Term "person" or is it covered in the
general interpretations of ordinance 1?

"person" (人、人士、個人、人物、人選) includes any public body and any body of
persons, corporate or unincorporate, and this definition shall
apply notwithstanding that the word "person" occurs in a provision
creating or relating to an offence or for the recovery of any fine
or compensation;

If so, This means that this ordinance only applies to employees of
the Hong Kong Government.

includes

From:"Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius." Law Dictionary.
Barron's Educational Series, Inc, 2003. Answers.com 19 Dec. 2007.


Lat: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
In construing statutes, contracts, wills, and the like under this
maxim, the mention of one thing within the statute or other
document implies the exclusion of another thing not so mentioned.
See 95 P. 2d 1007, 1012. "The maxim . . . Though not a rule of
law, is an aid to construction. It has application when, in the
natural association of ideas, that which is expressed is so set
over by way of contrast to that which is omitted that the
contrast enforces the affirmative inference that that which is
omitted must be intended to have opposite and contrary
treatment." See 34 So. 2d 132. Thus a statute granting certain
rights to "police, fire, and sanitation employees" would be
interpreted to exclude other public employees not enumerated
from the legislation. This is based on presumed legislative intent
and where for some reason this intent cannot be reasonably
inferred the court is free to draw a different conclusion. See 16
N.E. 2d 459, 462.


public body as defined by ordinance 1
"public body" (公共機構) includes-

(a) the Executive Council;
(b) the Legislative Council;
(c) (Repealed 78 of 1999 s. 7)
(ca) any District Council; (Added 42 of 1981 s. 27. Amended 8 of
1999 s. 89)
(cb) (Repealed 78 of 1999 s. 7)
(d) any other urban, rural or municipal council;
(e) any department of the Government; and
(f) any undertaking by or of the Government;


body of persons corporate or unincorporate

"body of persons" (團體) means any body politic, corporate or
collegiate and any company, fraternity, fellowship and society of
persons whether corporate or not corporate; (Added 36 of 1955 s. 3)

So if I read it correctly, This ordinance only applies to the Hong
Kong Government  and any registered group.

Based on this case, although I am sure that there are more.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (Appellant) and COMMON
EMPIRE LIMITED (Respondent)

The Judge in this case states clearly the following:

1. Words not defined in statutes must take on common meanings.

2. The Ordinance is a Statute.

It is my understanding that.

A statute is not a law. A statute is a
legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law.
The key word in that sentence is society?. A society is a number
of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and
act for a common goal. I do not provide my consent to this statute.



John of the Family Savage

[Anonymous]

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/p ... php?uid=72

[clark-kent]

the word "fags" meaning is VERY different in the US

[Anonymous]

Nice job JohnSavage.  Statutes do not apply to the general public as we are not part of any official society grouping, other than the general community definition which doesn't mean the same thing.  If you are a freeman, then no statute should lawfully apply to you.

[benpadiah]

Akbar and Jeff, anyone?

[Anonymous]

I got a response, I guess they don't know how to answer the questions. I imagine over 100 lawyers running around trying to find some way to justify their law.

Dear Mr Salvage,

Thank you for your email on 17 June 2008.

We are looking into your enquiry and will reply to you in due course.

Thank you for your concern in tobacco control issue.

Best regards,

Dr Edmund FONG
for Director of Health
(Ref: E-08-02008)

[Anonymous]

Got the typical response after a month.

Dear Sir,
　
Thank you for your email dated 17 June 2008.
　
The Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, Cap. 371 provides for the smoking ban
in designated no smoking areas and empowers certain public officers to
enforce the Ordinance.
　
Tobacco Control Office of the Department of Health is the principal
enforcement agency of the smoking ban under Smoking (Public Health)
Ordinance, Cap. 371 and Tobacco Control Inspectors will take enforcement
actions against any person, including member of the public, who commits an
offence under the Ordinance.  The smoking ban imposed under section 3(2) and
4(1) of the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, Cap. 371 applies to
individuals/natural persons.
　
We regret that our department is not in a position to offer legal advice to
you in interpreting the laws of Hong Kong.　 Should you need any such
assistance, please consult your own lawyer.
　
Thank you for your concern in tobacco control.

Best regards,

Dr Edmund FONG
for Director of Health

[Anonymous]

My response

Dearest Dr Edmund FONG

First let me thank you for your time.

I never claimed to be a "natural person" nor an "individual". Since the ordinance or statute 371 does not define the term "Person" it must use ordinance 1 to derive the meaning. If the legislators wanted to change the meaning they would have to define it in ordinance 371.

I am unfamiliar with the terms "natural person" and "individual" can you provide me with the definition of these terms.

To me if these terms are not defined in the term, then they are excluded because of the axiom.

"Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius."

I believe you will agree and your lawyers will concur.

So let's examine the term "person" in cap 1


cap1
"person" (人、人士、個人、人物、人選) includes any public body and any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, and this definition shall apply notwithstanding that the word "person" occurs in a provision creating or relating to an offence or for the recovery of any fine or compensation;

I understand the description of the term "person" as I described it in my June 17th email.

This does not define a sovereign man or woman.

I conditionally accept that It may include a natural person or individual, depending on how those terms are defined, if you prove to me that they are defined by the term "person" in cap 1, and that I am a natural person or individual and not a Sovereign man . I understand that I do not qualify as a sovereign man as is my right to claim.

keeping that in mind let's look at the 2 sections referred by you.


(2) No person shall smoke or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe in a no smoking area.


4(2) The driver, conductor, inspector, ticket collector or manager of any public transport carrier or any person authorized in that behalf by any such manager may, in respect of any person who appears to be contravening subsection (1)- (Amended 68 of 1995 s. 39)

                  (a) after indicating that the person is smoking or carrying a lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe, as the case may be, in a public transport carrier in contravention of subsection (1), require the person to extinguish the lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe;
                  (b) where the person fails to extinguish the lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe, require him-
                        (i) to give his name and address and to produce proof of identity; and
                        (ii) to leave the public transport carrier;(c) where the person fails, as required under paragraph (b)-
                        (i) to give his name and address and to produce proof of identity; or
                        (ii) to leave the public transport carrier,
                        remove him from the public transport carrier by the use of reasonable force if necessary and detain him and call for the assistance of a police officer to assist in the enforcement of this section.

I conclude that these refer to the term "person" as defined under cap 1. Do you agree?

If so this ordinance does not apply to a sovereign man, would you not agree?

As far as contacting a lawyer, to my knowledge lawyers are wards of the court and as such are employees of the court, so they would biased based on their employment contract.

I am willing to discuss this matter with you since you are the authority responsible for this ordinance.

Thank you for your time
John of the Family Savage

[kolnidre]

That's some fine work there, John. Can't wait to see Fong's reply.

I wonder how HK law, set up by the British, has been amended since the Basic Law was drafted and the Chinese communist bandits took over in 1997. There are probably a ton of gaps still remaining.

[Anonymous]

HK is a common law jurisdiction trumps  all others

got a response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email of 11 July 2008 regarding the interpretation of the
Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance (Cap. 371). We regret that our department
is not in a position to explain the interpretation of legal terms to you and
we have nothing to add to our reply of 8 July 2008.

Thanks again for your concern in tobacco control.

Best regards,

Dr Edmund FONG
for Director of Health

[K-Sensor]

"public body" means A human.  You could argue that it means a citizen due to the use of the word 'public.'

[Anonymous]

my final response no doubt

Dearest Edmund

Thank you for your response. Can you explain what position your department is in?

Why should I pay attention to this ordinance if even your department is unwilling to explain it to me or the terms used within. I have contacted the police, the courts, and legco and no one seems to be in a position to explain the terms used in these statutes. So I kindly ask that you inform me, who is in the position to explain these terms to me. I am not asking for legal advice, I am asking what the ordinance says.

Surely the administrators and Statute-makers must know better then a lawyer or else how would they know how to enforce the statutes?

I would ask you to search your soul and ponder what it means to be free man and what it means to be a slave. You may want to read the Hong Kong bill of rights. I know your employment depends on the illusion, but I ask you at what cost are you willing to sell you soul.

Peace be upon you
John of the family Savage

[Anonymous]

"public body" means A human.  You could argue that it means a citizen due to the use of the word 'public.'

I beg to differ, as per their own explanation.

body of persons may contain a "natural person" a "human" a "human being", but it does not contain a sovereign man, because it can not.

natural person n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

"body of persons" (團體) means any body politic, corporate or collegiate and any company, fraternity, fellowship and society of persons whether corporate or not corporate; (Added 36 of 1955 s. 3)

When decoding statutes you need to look at  the language of the statute.
so we would have to define all terms used in body of persons
body politic, corporate or collegiate
company
fraternity
fellowship
society of persons

you will first notice that no where does it mention human, human being, natural person, man, women

one could argue that society of persons includes humans but it really depends on the definition.


"public body" (公共機構) includes-

                  (a) the Executive Council;
                  (b) the Legislative Council;
                  (c) (Repealed 78 of 1999 s. 7)
                  (ca) any District Council; (Added 42 of 1981 s. 27. Amended 8 of 1999 s. 89)
                  (cb) (Repealed 78 of 1999 s. 7)
                  (d) any other urban, rural or municipal council;
                  (e) any department of the Government; and
                  (f) any undertaking by or of the Government;

[Anonymous]

The Saga Continues

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

Our department will enforce the smoking ban as stipulated in the Smoking
(Public Health) Ordinance, as explained in my emails of  8 and 16 July.
Should you need assistance in interpreting the law, please consult you own
legal adviser.
Thank you for your concern in tobacco control.

Best regards,
Dr Edmund FONG
for Director of Health

my reply

Dearest edmund

Thank you for your response.

I am confused now, you explained that your department is not in a position to explain the ordinance to me, but you are able to enforce the ordinance.

How can you enforce something you can't explain or don't comprehend? Should not your enforcement officers comprehend the meaning of terms used in the ordinance, so that they only enforce the ordinance on "persons" volunteering to comply with the voluntary ordinance.

As I see it, and from what I comprehend of the ordinances, a man would have to be the agent for the "person" and volunteer his God given rights to an authority below his creator.

As a man I have unalienable rights from the creator, and no one can infringe on those rights. I can choose to volunteer to comply with a request, but that is my choice.

I would like to know what your ordinance enforcement officers are taught.

I don't need legal assistance, I need you to be truthful and stop beating around the bush. you have no doubt been advised by your legal advisor that I have decoded the fraud and you are unable to answer because it would mean you would have to admit to slavery of your fellow men.

I know you will realize that what you are doing is harming others and you will change your ways.

or at least I hope you will, because you're are not immune from the enslavement and once you realize that, surely you would want to be free.

peace

John of the family Savage

[Anonymous]

Dear Sir,

As explained in my email of 8 July 2008, our view on the smoking ban imposed
under section 3(2) and 4(1) of the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, Cap.
371 is that it applies to individuals/natural persons, and therefore our
Tobacco Control Inspectors will take enforcement action against any person,
including member of the public, who commits an offence under the Ordinance.

However, as an enforcement agency to the Ordinance, we are not in a position
to comment on your interpretation to legal terms and you are suggested to
consult your own legal advisor if you would like to seek comment to your
interpretation or assistance in interpreting legal terms.

Thanks again for your concern in tobacco control.

Best regards,

Dr Edmund FONG
For Director of Health

My final response

Dearest Edmund

Notice:

I conditionally accept your interpretation of the term person if you can provide proof of your claim that the definition of the term person includes individuals/natural persons, and define the terms individuals and natural persons, and show me where the definition of the term person includes these terms, and you provide proof of your claim that I as a sovereign man am included under the term "person" and that you admit that I am nothing more then a slave if you exert your authority against my free will. If you do not provide proof of your claim with in 14 days, I will conclude that you and your enforcement officers have no authority over me.

consider yourself so notified and inform all your enforcement officers that if they encounter a sovereign man that they must respect my authority and leave me alone.

peace to you and yours
John of the Family Savage