"SOVEREIGN", "PERSON", "ENTITY" or "INDIVIDUAL"?

[Bulletproof Monk]

SOVEREIGN OR "PERSON"?

"A statute must say exactly what it means, and mean exactly what it says...there is no room for missinterpretation or confusion."


THE CORPORATIONS LAW - (remember...."corporations")

Excerpts from the Australian Taxation Office website.

"entity'' : for the purposes of Chapter 2E an ``entity'' is any of the following:
(a) a body corporate
(b) a partnership
(c) an unincorporated body
(d) an individual
(e) for a trust that has only 1 trustee - the trustee
(f) for a trust that has more than 1 trustee - the trustees together;

"person'' :
(a) has a meaning affected by section 85A; and
(b) when used in Division 2 of Part 2D.2 (sections 200B to 1813) - includes a superannuation fund;

"individual'' means a natural person



I have often been asked or told by government officials, that my carrying on business on my own makes me a "sole trader".

"sole trader'' means a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange;

(which I am not...)

"agency'' means an agency, authority, body or person;

Now I'm really confused...are they trying to say I'm an Agency?

Here's the important one for a Sovereign:

"another jurisdiction'' means a jurisdiction other than this jurisdiction;

"jurisdiction'' means a State or the Capital Territory and, in the case of a State, includes the coastal sea of the State


SOVEREIGN OR PERSON

The issue of 'person' is of primary importance since under color of authority [unconstitutional regardless of the target populace] statutes and laws are made to affect 'person[s,'] not 'citizen' or 'sovereign.' As stated above, the sovereign is the highest authority and is supreme to all other law except the laws of the Creator.

The basic premise that no government made by man has the actual and real authority to make and impose laws on the sovereign which conflict with his unalienable rights has been well supported so far. It has additionally been supported that the only responsibility of the individual - the sovereign - is that he must not interfere with the rights of his fellow people. Therefore, barring any damage to another's rights and property, the sovereign is free to exercise his rights as he see fit.

But, what of this 'person' to which so many laws apply? Who and what is a 'person'?

Are you a 'person' in the eyes of the law?

It is a well-founded principle of law that a statute must state exactly what it means and mean exactly what it states.

"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction - that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there - is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 117, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

And, this decision which clearly means that any vagueness is in violation of due process and, therefore, statutes must be written clearly so that the men and women of common intelligence all derive the same meaning.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385

It is also well founded that that any term used is taken as used in its ordinary sense since it is the sovereign citizen who reads and interprets law. Thus, any technical term - or a term with several meanings - must be clearly defined within the law or the section of the regulatory document the law is part of.

Thus, we find this statute in Missouri Revised Statutes [RSMo] that clearly demands that technical or meanings from the ordinary meanings [peculiar] are understood according to their technical import.
"Words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense, but technical words and phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be understood according to their technical import." RSMo Chapter 1, Section 1.090

In everyday common use we use the word 'person' to mean a natural born man or woman. However, in law there are many different meanings peculiar to this term. Because the word has many different meanings in law, it must be treated as a technical term or having technical import with its meaning clearly defined in the section or statute being read.

The most common definition of 'person' given in statutes is that 'person' is construed to include an individual, a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, a company or corporation, or some derivation of this definition. Thus, person may have varying definitions in law that are not necessarily the common use meaning.

Therefore, we must ask exactly what is a 'legal person' since one of the terms used by governments and courts in our country is 'legal person.'
legal person: a body of persons or an entity [as a corporation] considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. - Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of Law.

[1996.] [Note: Legal person is not a natural person but has many of the same rights, etcetera, as a natural person in the eyes of the law.]

Person. 1. A human being [a 'natural' person.] 2. A corporation [an 'artificial' person.] Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word 'person' includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary.

3. Any other 'being' entitled to sue as a legal entity [a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc..] 4. The plural of person is persons, not people [see that word.] Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999.

Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are 'persons' in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to 'persons' which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Note: Webster's treats 'person' as a created persona or false identity. This goes along with the 1996 dictionary in that it treats a legal person as a natural person for purposes of suits, etc.]

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. 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.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Revised 6th Edition

Is it possible, then, that 'legal person' is actually a legal fiction that is subject to government administrative laws and does not apply to the sovereign individual? If 'person' does apply to the sovereign, then 'person' must be defined as the sovereign or the 'sovereign' as the person. Remember we are talking of legal terminology, not common everyday meanings.

How does the United States Code [USC] define a 'United States person'? This is found in Title 26 [USC 26,] Subtitle F, Chapter 79, Section 7701[a,] one of the few times 'person' and 'United States person' are defined:

[1] Person. The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.'
And, in Section 7701[a][30,] defining United States person:
[30] United States person The term ''United States person'' means -
[A] a citizen or resident of the United States,
[b] a domestic partnership,
[C] a domestic corporation, [D] any estate [other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph [31,] and -
[E] any trust if - [then requirements for establishing US control over the trust]

One might think that since 'individual' can mean a 'person' in law that the sovereign - since he is an individual - is therefore a 'person' in law. But, 'individual' also as various meanings in law, including a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, or a company or corporation.

Individual 1a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human:

individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: 2. Existing as a distinct

entity; separate:' American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000.

Entity - '1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.' [Am. Her. Dict., supra]

[Jerseee]

Bulletproof monk,

You are on the right track all the way. Your post above explains why I call the strawman, my commercial person.

Now I know that I have stated to lots of members not to take ownership of something they have no control over. But just as they (crooked government agents) want to play this shell game of names--so can I.

THe reason I call it, "my commercial person" is this.....I have a another that I created. You see, they stole Jerseee and made it into JERSEEE so that they can try to hold me accountable for all of their treachery. Well, I just created JERSEE on a business license and now before anything goes down--they need to be looking for the right "person". I do this only to show that there is a difference between Jersee and JERSEE. I do not use UCC redemption. This is the power of jurisdiction at work. Jurisdiction is the key to all of this. Either they have it or they don't. And the beautiful thing about jurisdiction is that only you can give it to them.

Government is a great tool but we all know the abuses that go on. I feel its high time to stop getting upset with their trickery and start playing the game and using your own creative rules. But staying within the bounds of common law.

THis is where your power lies. We all have creativity. We are all sovereign. Catch the thieves in their own game with your rules! Common law.

Have fun

[weishaupt1776]

WHo do want to talk to?

Jersee or JERSEE?

Jersee as The LESSOR ,CONSIGNOR, BAILOR, GRANTOR?

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

WHo do want to talk to?

Jersee or JERSEE?

Jersee as The LESSOR ,CONSIGNOR, BAILOR, GRANTOR?

Weis,

how about trying ot talk to Jersee as the sovereign authority endowed by the Creator.

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

SOVEREIGN OR "PERSON"?

"A statute must say exactly what it means, and mean exactly what it says...there is no room for missinterpretation or confusion."


THE CORPORATIONS LAW - (remember...."corporations")

Excerpts from the Australian Taxation Office website.

"entity'' : for the purposes of Chapter 2E an ``entity'' is any of the following:
(a) a body corporate
(b) a partnership
(c) an unincorporated body
(d) an individual
(e) for a trust that has only 1 trustee - the trustee
(f) for a trust that has more than 1 trustee - the trustees together;

"person'' :
(a) has a meaning affected by section 85A; and
(b) when used in Division 2 of Part 2D.2 (sections 200B to 1813) - includes a superannuation fund;

"individual'' means a natural person



I have often been asked or told by government officials, that my carrying on business on my own makes me a "sole trader".

"sole trader'' means a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange;

(which I am not...)

"agency'' means an agency, authority, body or person;

Now I'm really confused...are they trying to say I'm an Agency?

Here's the important one for a Sovereign:

"another jurisdiction'' means a jurisdiction other than this jurisdiction;

"jurisdiction'' means a State or the Capital Territory and, in the case of a State, includes the coastal sea of the State


SOVEREIGN OR PERSON

The issue of 'person' is of primary importance since under color of authority [unconstitutional regardless of the target populace] statutes and laws are made to affect 'person[s,'] not 'citizen' or 'sovereign.' As stated above, the sovereign is the highest authority and is supreme to all other law except the laws of the Creator.

The basic premise that no government made by man has the actual and real authority to make and impose laws on the sovereign which conflict with his unalienable rights has been well supported so far. It has additionally been supported that the only responsibility of the individual - the sovereign - is that he must not interfere with the rights of his fellow people. Therefore, barring any damage to another's rights and property, the sovereign is free to exercise his rights as he see fit.

But, what of this 'person' to which so many laws apply? Who and what is a 'person'?

Are you a 'person' in the eyes of the law?

It is a well-founded principle of law that a statute must state exactly what it means and mean exactly what it states.

"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction - that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there - is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 117, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

And, this decision which clearly means that any vagueness is in violation of due process and, therefore, statutes must be written clearly so that the men and women of common intelligence all derive the same meaning.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385

It is also well founded that that any term used is taken as used in its ordinary sense since it is the sovereign citizen who reads and interprets law. Thus, any technical term - or a term with several meanings - must be clearly defined within the law or the section of the regulatory document the law is part of.

Thus, we find this statute in Missouri Revised Statutes [RSMo] that clearly demands that technical or meanings from the ordinary meanings [peculiar] are understood according to their technical import.
"Words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense, but technical words and phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be understood according to their technical import." RSMo Chapter 1, Section 1.090

In everyday common use we use the word 'person' to mean a natural born man or woman. However, in law there are many different meanings peculiar to this term. Because the word has many different meanings in law, it must be treated as a technical term or having technical import with its meaning clearly defined in the section or statute being read.

The most common definition of 'person' given in statutes is that 'person' is construed to include an individual, a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, a company or corporation, or some derivation of this definition. Thus, person may have varying definitions in law that are not necessarily the common use meaning.

Therefore, we must ask exactly what is a 'legal person' since one of the terms used by governments and courts in our country is 'legal person.'
legal person: a body of persons or an entity [as a corporation] considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. - Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of Law.

[1996.] [Note: Legal person is not a natural person but has many of the same rights, etcetera, as a natural person in the eyes of the law.]

Person. 1. A human being [a 'natural' person.] 2. A corporation [an 'artificial' person.] Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word 'person' includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary.

3. Any other 'being' entitled to sue as a legal entity [a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc..] 4. The plural of person is persons, not people [see that word.] Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999.

Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are 'persons' in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to 'persons' which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Note: Webster's treats 'person' as a created persona or false identity. This goes along with the 1996 dictionary in that it treats a legal person as a natural person for purposes of suits, etc.]

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. 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.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Revised 6th Edition

Is it possible, then, that 'legal person' is actually a legal fiction that is subject to government administrative laws and does not apply to the sovereign individual? If 'person' does apply to the sovereign, then 'person' must be defined as the sovereign or the 'sovereign' as the person. Remember we are talking of legal terminology, not common everyday meanings.

How does the United States Code [USC] define a 'United States person'? This is found in Title 26 [USC 26,] Subtitle F, Chapter 79, Section 7701[a,] one of the few times 'person' and 'United States person' are defined:

[1] Person. The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.'
And, in Section 7701[a][30,] defining United States person:
[30] United States person The term ''United States person'' means -
[A] a citizen or resident of the United States,
[b] a domestic partnership,
[C] a domestic corporation, [D] any estate [other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph [31,] and -
[E] any trust if - [then requirements for establishing US control over the trust]

One might think that since 'individual' can mean a 'person' in law that the sovereign - since he is an individual - is therefore a 'person' in law. But, 'individual' also as various meanings in law, including a trust, estate, a partnership, an association, or a company or corporation.

Individual 1a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human:

individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: 2. Existing as a distinct

entity; separate:' American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000.

Entity - '1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.' [Am. Her. Dict., supra]

These define a governmental entity all right. Is "you" or "I" a governmental entity?

So when "I" starts to argue and associate wit these here what happens?

What is you?

[Workalacious D]

I like to break it down even further than both, I am a Human BE-ING existing on the surface of a planet within the universe. What mary croft would like to call, I am just merely an extension of the creator, therefore BE-ING a co-creator of what i comprehend as existince on this plane we call universe.
Until we free ourselves by showing the gov. we can be peaceful then only can the force of control of law will start to subside. its our nature to be violent, therefore the need for government was called for, I shall go in peace and prove my worthiness to unconform from this soceity.

[Friendsplacect]

Great post Bulletproof!

[hooded50]

Folks, your own Supreme Court of the united States of America has differentiated between the term "person" and "sovereign".

First, Supreme Court admitted that "the people" are all "sovereigns":

"…[i]n our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…at the Revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects…and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that the legal definition of the word "person" not only does not include the "sovereign", but that the legal definition of "person" actually excludes the "sovereign":

"And the Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government." United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 [emphasis mine]

"Since in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315 [emphasis mine]

"[i]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that a "statute" cannot be applied to a sovereign, unless the statute contains express words to that effect:

"There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect….In common usage that term [person] does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court held that a "sovereign" is exempt from suit:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 [emphasis mine]

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…sovereignty itself remains with the people…." Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419

Then, Supreme Court admitted that the "state" is an 'artificial person', and that those who are capable of thinking, acting, and speaking are not "persons", but "men":

“I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that [man’s] creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker…A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance..... Let a State be considered as subordinate to the people….It is an artificial person…In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men…” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419

Those who want to declare yourself to be a "person" - help yourself.

I particularly enjoy my sovereignty, especially when you note that every statute in existence particularly states that it applies to a "person" ("no person shall", "any person who", etc) and that not ONE statute, federal, state, or local, contains explicit wording that it applies to a sovereign.

I will not declare myself to be a "person". I have noted in my own personal experience that when you present these facts to the court, the judges run for the hills.

I've personally had three judges permanently recuse themselves from any matter involving me, another judge who "retired" rather than answer my questions under oath, and one judge who simply refused to take any action against me. It could be coincidence, but I'd say this is some pretty powerful evidence against judges and lawyers who are proceeding against sovereigns knowing that they don't have the jurisdiction to do so. . . . . . .

GOD IS GOOD!

[ndusa]

[quote=hooded50]First, Supreme Court admitted that "the people" are all "sovereigns":

"…[i]n our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…at the Revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects…and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that the legal definition of the word "person" not only does not include the "sovereign", but that the legal definition of "person" actually excludes the "sovereign":

Of course, PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT ARE SOVEREIGN, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL!

"And the Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government." United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 [emphasis mine]

"Since in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315 [emphasis mine]

"[i]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court said that a "statute" cannot be applied to a sovereign, unless the statute contains express words to that effect:

"There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect….In common usage that term [person] does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 [emphasis mine]

Then, Supreme Court held that a "sovereign" is exempt from suit:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353 [emphasis mine]

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…sovereignty itself remains with the people…." Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 [emphasis mine]

“…it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419

Then, Supreme Court admitted that the "state" is an 'artificial person', and that those who are capable of thinking, acting, and speaking are not "persons", but "men":

“I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that [man’s] creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker…A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance..... Let a State be considered as subordinate to the people….It is an artificial person…In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men…” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419[quote]

Sounds like what I have been saying, the government AKA "WE THE PEOPLE" Are sovereign, not the individual. Thanks for the post and helping to debunk the "those laws don't apply to me" and "I'm sovereign", which we can see the individual is not sovereign.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
One interesting perspective ... is that its possible to create a government and then not only to NOT take any role within that government but to also remain sovereign over that government while not being a unit of that government. For example, it is generally held in some jurisdictions that "Acts" dont bind "the Crown" unless they expressly state that the Crown shall be bound thereby (ala: sovereign immunity).