Series 1 Part 3: MUNICIPAL FRAUD
Using Confusing Undefined Terminology to Dupe the People
Be sure to also check out Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine of our UN INVASION of CANADA – ‘Peace Bait’ series and Parts One and Two of our MUNICIPAL FRAUD series.
And now, we continue with our MUNICIPAL FRAUD content.
We kindly ask that when sharing this research, you appropriately credit People-United, and point people towards our Substack newsletters. Decades have gone into collecting this information and there is much more to come.
Municipal Councils Ignore the Law, Facilitate Corporate Theft of Private Property!
Municipal officials used to be liable for their actions but are no longer, as they sign Declaration of Office in the world government run by the United Nations.
In 1985 when the UN took over the corporate governance of Canada, it gave all individuals who work for it or any of its agencies and NGOs, full immunity from prosecution and investigation for all crimes, including murder. This includes 3rd party employees and key international organizations (such as the UN, ICLEI, WEF, WHO), who are not elected by Canadians.
As you learn from Series 1 UN INVASION Part 7 no one who works for the UN or any of its agencies and organizations pay income or excise tax and none can be prosecuted for following UN orders. This is clearly an incentive for many to be treasonous or look the other way when treason, corruption, fraud and violations of human rights are happening. If an elected official refuses to sign the Declaration of Office, they are prevented from holding the office they won.
Canadian Membership fees to UN (archived here): In the last 10 years, Canada contributed over $900 million in support of WHO global health priorities alone.
“Canada is the fifth largest Member State donor to UN/WHO (8th largest overall) in the 2020-2021 biennium with a total contribution equivalent to $212 million US.”
As you can see, the UN/WHO information for UN 2023 Canadian Fees with financial allocation of funds of $5.5 million, is almost 60% to WHO Headquarters. Our Federal Taxes support this membership fee.
Canada’s contributions for UN membership was $76,877,565 in US dollars for the year 2024 [LOOKS LIKE THE DATA AT THAT PAGE IS UPDATED FOR 2025], almost $77 billion dollars to a foreign government.
Canadians are funding this criminal foreign UN government, as well as trying to keep up with the communist Canadian government.
Imagine how well off we would all be if all that money was spent in Canada to benefit Canadians, instead of building a World Government for the UN?
Canada purportedly assists other countries, primarily Muslim-majority African countries, but the corporate Canadian government has not yet provided clean water to our Aboriginal communities as a priority, although this was an election promise in 2015.
Here’s an example of the way the ‘benefit’ from the contributions to the UN and WHO is a one-way street:
“The federal government confirmed it wouldn’t meet its goal of ending all long-term drinking water advisories in First Nations by March 2021, as Trudeau pledged to do, but he has all those billions of dollars to send to the UN and WHO, not including the many other ‘agencies’ it funds.”
~ Global News
This article shows another example of how First Nations are without ‘partners’ to bring fire codes into their communities.
Canada’s ‘contribution’ to the United Nations agendas and activities in other countries restricts the livelihood and wellbeing of Canadians, while UN demands that Carbon Taxation is forced on us to fund the UN’s climate change hoax.
~ It’s like stealing from Paul, to pay John, even though John should have no say in anything and not be supported by Paul in the first place. ~
Municipalities commit local public funds (tax dollars) to private sustainable development goals and foreign investors (invaders), but there is absolutely no benefit to Canadians and no lawful act that authorizes it. They fund the UN’s special interest groups, which have caused nothing but havoc across Canada. Those ‘rainbow’-coloured crosswalks have cost us millions of taxpayer dollars that could, instead, go to building homeless shelters.
What we get from our affiliation with the UN and its many subsidiary corporations and non-governmental agencies:
a yearly bill and membership fees in the millions of dollars;
17 Sustainable Development goals (SDGs);
impositions of the Green New deal;
lies about Climate Change;
hypersexualized and mutilated children;
involvement in ‘peacekeeping’ and wars that are funded by globalists associated with the UN; and
increased taxation, and
lawless municipal corporations.
-- it is very clear we are being swindled and extorted by foreign invaders.
Shortly, we will show how municipalities have NO authority or power to impose any kind of tax, let alone property tax and vacancy taxes, on men and women owners of private property and family farms.
Here’s an example of Peterborough, Ontario’s activities on behalf of the UN:
Peterborough Sustainable Development Strategic Plans states that Peterborough County is using 5 of the UN’s 17 SDG’s (Sustainable Development Goals/global agenda) in its Economic Development plan 2021-2023
In other words, Peterborough is serving a foreign master by imposing the foreign master’s goals as law.
Nobel Laureate Dr. John Klauser and International Climate Scientists not affiliated with the UN, state that the UN data is inaccurate. Yet, city hall acts as though climate change activism is a religious duty and anything the UN says about it is gospel.
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth, and not the toxin that the lying UN claims. You’ll find a great deal more about this in the future Series titled CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX.
The UN created “Climate Change” Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), such as restricting home appliances and travel, and dictating local Development & Energy efficiency consumer policies. It created the nightmare that private property owners are facing as municipal corporations steal their properties through lawfare and Planning actions.
Other SDG goals recommend bans on numerous municipal and provincial commodities, installation of bike lanes that few people use, 15-minute cities, fake-food, racist education and gender ideology. All SDGs have harmed and destroyed people, the environment and the fabric of Canadian society... and especially our youth.
The biggest harm will come from making existing products and equipment such as vehicles, appliances, and the essentials of daily living obsolete if not electric, by 2030. Yet the environmental catastrophe that the manufacture of batteries alone causes is beyond the imagination of most to comprehend. We will discuss this ELECTRICITY FRAUD in a future series.
Elected municipal councils are used by the corporations running the municipalities to do the bidding of UN-controlled planners to remove all property rights and to deprive private property owners of their properties.
***Municipal councils (who are NOT a legislative body of government, as are the provinces and federal government) and that are the lowest tier of government that could easily be removed by the province, are being used and manipulated to do “indirectly” what our “legislative bodies of government” (provincial and federal) cannot do “directly” themselves.
Provincial and federal governments cannot create regulations to remove property ownership from the people! That is, until you learn that your property was incorporated into the corporation to form the municipal corporation without your knowledge or consent.
But corporate CAO’S (Chief Administrative Officers of the municipal corporations) and the UN-controlled Municipal Planners collude to control the elected municipal council members and manipulate them into adopting Official Plans. The scheme continues as lawyers promote the Official Plan as law, and push property rights-violating Zoning Bylaws in courts.
Municipalities are a “service” corporation that were created by the province to provide “services” to the people who reside within that municipal geographical boundary and to do so ‘at-cost’. At least, that’s how the story goes.
As you will learn, all property owners were ‘incorporated’ without their knowledge or consent, but the CAOs and senior staff know this happened. They also know that the Municipal Act clearly states the municipality has no power or authority to tax.
Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario)
“PART I GENERAL
Interpretation1 (1) In this Act,
“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated;
Restrictions, financial matters
17 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to,
(a) impose taxes;
(b) borrow or invest money or sell debt;”
While municipal staff will state that the Municipal Act at other locations within the Act tell them how to collect taxes, the fact is that there is NO provision anywhere in the Municipal Act, 2001 that AUTHORIZES a municipality in any way to impose taxes no matter how the sections of the Act say to collect it.
The staff gaslight the public by conflating the procedure to be followed to collect taxes, by ignoring the fact that the Municipal Act specifically states municipalities have NO ‘authorization’ to collect taxes. When this matter of lack of authority and power to tax residents is brought up, they refuse to address s. 17(1)(a).
If we ‘choose’ to pay the Tax Bill when we receive it, technically they have not ‘imposed’ it. If we refuse, and they sell our property for taxes, they have imposed it and violated the law. Since the courts are in the back pockets of the municipalities, there is no recourse against this fraud and extortion.
The corporation tells the incorporated inhabitants that they must pay taxes or else face interest penalties and eventually tax sale. An unelected body, controlled by the foreign, unelected UN, is therefore stealing property and tax money from private property owners under the color of law (pretext that they have the lawful authority), by outright lying.
Unlike Municipal corporations that are regulated under the authority of the Municipal Act of Ontario, Business corporations are regulated under the Corporations Act of Ontario and of Canada regarding how they must operate.
The main difference is that instead of a Board of Directors being elected to protect the interests of the shareholders of a business, municipal corporations have “elected” municipal councilors (elected by the people) who are purportedly in those roles to protect the interests of those property owners (unwittingly incorporated property owners) of the municipality. As soon as they are elected, they abandon their true roles and start work for the UN’s PPP running the locality as a for-profit business.
How long would a typical corporation’s board of directors last if shareholders learned the board was working for a separate corporation that was trying to steal their corporation?
In their roles, municipal councilors are supposed to ensure the municipal service corporation (PPP) is held accountable and operates in accordance with the law at all times and provides ALL services AT COST. Instead, huge profits are made from swindling the public for taxes, while they horde billions in surplus.
Their other more recent scam is to use lawfare to steal private property by falsely alleging one wrongdoing after another that drive property owners into poverty trying to manage the legal fees.
When a change that will affect the operation of the municipality is put forth, municipal councilors are required (by legislation) to hold public meetings and to inform the property owners/investors, etc. of any proposed change, to consider all comments and opinions of the public and to be genuine in their interactions with property owners. This never happens, because PPP corporate staff usher elected officials into ‘closed meetings’ and or turn off the microphone and in some case, have had security or police remove the speaker.
Councilors are also supposed to be accountable to the public and required to be transparent in all they do, as provided for by the Municipal Act. This is no different than how the Board of Directors of a regular corporation is held accountable to their shareholders/investors. However, municipalities do NOT follow the rules … they make their own.
But shareholders have a lot of power; property owners do not thanks to the UN restructuring of our lives as ‘incorporated inhabitants’ and the courts into 3rd world kangaroo courts.
**Municipal corporations must IMPROVE THE SERVICES they provide, and PROVIDE THEM AT COST, in order to justify their existence. Every action they take must be authorized in the form of a legitimate BYLAW. This never happens.
For example, if corporate staff want to purchase a piece of equipment, they have to create a Bylaw wherein they state they have requested it, and their Council Members have approved it. This now becomes a documented record to show proof of this purchase. They are not supposed to do sole-sourcing as they do today to enrich supporters and friends, especially law firms.
Another example: making a change in the operation of the municipality requires corporate staff to recommend the changes, for council to document the requested change, call for public participation and objectively consider all taxpayer opinions, dissent and approvals, without favoritism toward their corporate staff. This too is the opposite of what happens!
Another example: ‘woke’ corporate staff may decide they want all doors in their public buildings painted in rainbow colours in support of the anti- Christian pro-gay/pedophile cults. Normally, corporate staff must formally justify the reason for this change and then seek the approval of the Council members, who seek the consent of the residents and private property owners. This never happens.
If Council approves the paint-job, it becomes a documented record in the form of a Bylaw to proceed with that change. However, at the same time, the municipal council are obligated to KNOW where their authority lies because they are bound by the Municipal Act as to whether they even have the authority to pass such a by-law that does not benefit the majority of taxpayers. As you’ve seen, this too never happens.
They are obligated to know if such a by-law would violate private property rights, human rights codes and so on. They are obligated to determine what the people who have to look at anti-Christian symbolism want.
Also, for the City to settle a civil claim against it, the lawyer acting for the City must have approval in the form of a bylaw. This too appears to be ignored and lawyers just make ‘deals’ as they please.
Councilors would only know the parameters of their authority if they had read and become proficient in the Municipal Councillors Guide (archived here). See Section 7 – Councilors as Lawmakers.
Section 7 refers to Municipal Councils as the Lawmakers and recommends they familiarize themselves with reading the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Constitution, the Charter of Rights & Freedoms and the applicable Human Rights Code as well as other legislative acts that may affect municipal activity such as the Line Fences Act, Building Code Act, 1992, Police Services Act, Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the Ontario Works Act, 1997, all of which are easily accessible online.
Section 9 of the Municipal Act, clearly states that the municipality only has the:
“Powers of a natural person
9 A municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.”
While ‘natural person’ is not defined in the Municipal Act, we can find it defined elsewhere. The Municipal Act does define ‘person’. Note that ‘natural person’ and ‘person’ are two different legal terms and we will show how they are each defined below.
What is PERSON?
Black’s Law Dictionary:
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. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.
Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition:
What is JURIDICAL PERSON?
Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. Also refer to body corporate.”
What is NATURAL PERSON?
Black’s Law Dictionary:
“A human being, naturally born, versus a legally-generated juridical person.”
[Note: you were created by a live human being; legal entities, such as corporations, are created on paper and can be dissolved just as quickly.]
There is reference to ‘natural person’ in the most recent version of the fictitious Income Tax Act. We’ll get to that shortly.
What is ARTIFICIAL PERSON?
Black’s Law Dictionary:
“A nonhuman entity that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties. AKA juristic person and legal person. Refer to body corporate.”
***Note: YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT THE DEFINITIONS WE PROVIDE NEXT ARE IN A SEEMINGLY DISJOINTED ORDER, BUT KNOW THAT THIS IS THE EXACT ORDER THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR IN the Income Tax Act’s ROUGHLY 400 PAGES. And yes, we read the entire 400 pages to find these definitions, which is why we say that research is very time consuming.
From the most recent version of the Income Tax Act (Canada):
“Interpretations:
…entity includes an association, a corporation, a fund, a natural person, a joint venture, an organization, a partnership, a syndicate and a trust; (entité)”
That new definition is 100% fiction and violates not only the Law Dictionary definition of ‘entity’ but proper statutory framing. Proper statutory framing is specific when using the terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’. This is extremely important for all men and women to be clear about:
As explained by Tao of Law:
“What this basically means is that all of the items following “includes” or “including” must have an identifiable and natural class relationship in order to be considered a viable addition to the “enlargement” intent and functionality of the statute. If there is any kind of oddball item listed in that same definition that does not appear to fit in with the classification represented by the majority of the other things listed, then that oddball thing must be subjected and limited to an interpretation that actually harmonizes it with all the other listed items in the “includes/including” language framework.
An example of this of this kind of apparently legally conflicting definition would be something like, “The term
“Person” includes a natural person, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity,” or,
“the term “Person” includes an individual, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity.”
[our note: this conflicting term is found in the most recent version of the Income Tax Act specifically to dupe the public into thinking that individuals and natural persons must pay income tax, when later definitions in the Act show the exact opposite.]
Both of these definitions contain either the term “natural person” or “individual” preceding what is otherwise an entire list that “includes” or is “including” only “legal entities,” i.e. they list something/one that is naturally existing and tangibly real with something that is nothing more than an intangible contemplative legal fiction that does not naturally exist at all.
The terms “natural person” and “individual” are normally construed to be part of a completely different naturally existing and tangibly real classification than that of all the fictional entities specifically listed alongside them (a naturally existing living breathing being), right? But, how can that be without actually violating the rules pertaining to the use of “includes/including” in statutory law?
In cases like this, the only acceptable interpretation is one that can logically harmonize everything that is listed into a singular object classification without culminating in a “ridiculous result/outcome.”
Otherwise, if this simply isn’t possible, the rules of statutory construction and interpretation relating to the proper use of “includes” and “including” have been violated, making the resulting interpretation legally unsound and inherently incorrect, thus, challengeable as being unconstitutional and void for vagueness and ambiguity.”
~ Tao of Law, October 1, 2017[Our note: ** It is highly recommended that all non-lawyers take advantage of the free legal information on the Tao of Law website, as it will help in all discussions with lawyers and when self-litigating. It will show how most lawyers and judges have no idea what they are doing or are complicit in this fraud against men and women.]”
E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me
Back to definitions from the most recent version of the fictitious Income Tax Act of Canada:
“taxpayer has the meaning assigned by subsection 248(1), but does not include a natural person or a partnership.
(from s. 248 (1) taxpayer includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax – a screen shot of the provision:
“individual means a person other than a corporation;
person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;”
From s. 79(1):
“property does not include
(a) money, or
(b) indebtedness owed by or guaranteed by the government of a country, or a province, state, or other political subdivision of that country; (bien)'“
At section 79 more definitions in the ITA discusses ‘person’ like this:
“79 (1) definitions
Person includes a partnership
[our note: remember what we pointed out about the meaning of ‘includes’ in that it limits the category to partnerships and not live men and women]
Sub Division A- Income or Loss from an Office or Employment
Definitions79 (7) … qualifying person means a corporation or a mutual fund trust.
Security of a qualifying person means
(a) if the person is a corporation, a share of the capital stock of the corporation; and
(b) if the person is a mutual fund trust, a unit of the trust. (titre)
(8) to (15) [Repealed, 2010, c. 25, s. 3]”
Under Eligible Funeral Arrangements
“148.1 (1) qualifying person means a person licensed or otherwise authorized under the laws of a province to provide funeral or cemetery services with respect to individuals;”
(Note: the first time a human being is referred to is as an individual being provided cemetery services. The ‘person’ is actually the business, the one receiving the business’s services is an individual man or woman. This reinforces that the entire Income Tax Act is referencing artificial persons (businesses) and not individual natural persons (men and women).)
“Definition of specified person
227 (5.1) In subsection 227(5), a specified person in relation to a particular person means a person who is, in relation to the particular person or the disbursements, property, business or estate of the particular person,
(a) a trustee;
(b) a liquidator;
(c) a receiver;
(d) an interim receiver;
(e) a receiver-manager;
(f) a trustee in bankruptcy or other person appointed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act;
(g) an assignee;
(h) a secured creditor (as defined in subsection 224(1.3));
(i) an executor, a liquidator of a succession or an administrator;
(j) any person acting in a capacity similar to that of a person referred to in any of paragraphs 227(5.1)(a) to 227(5.1)(i);
(k) a person appointed (otherwise than as an employee of the creditor) at the request of, or on the advice of, a secured creditor in relation to the particular person to monitor, or provide advice in respect of, the disbursements, property, business or estate of the particular person under circumstances such that it is reasonable to conclude that the person is appointed to protect or advance the interests of the creditor; or
(l) an agent of a specified person referred to in any of paragraphs 227(5.1)(a) to 227(5.1)(k).Person includes partnership
(5.2) For the purposes of this section, references in subsections 227(5) and 227(5.1) to persons include partnerships.”
[Note: again, you see reference to a person as being a business, not a man or woman. We know a live man or woman can control any one of the above, but they cease being regarded as a living being as soon as they are incorporated and become an artificial legal entity, such as a trustee or business partner.]
“entity means a person (other than a natural person) or a legal arrangement, such as a corporation, partnership, trust or foundation.”
This definition of entity is a 100% contradiction to the definition of entity provided in the Interpretation section of the ITA (near the opening). In the first definition at the top of the ITA, it includes natural persons as ‘entities’, but in this section of the ITA, it specifically excludes natural person in the definition of entity. Are you starting to see the legal fraud yet?
Now for the biggy:
“natural person means an individual other than a trust.”
You should by now be inclined to want to see our Series #2 TAXATION FRAUD as soon as it is published, to see how we men and women are being swindled to our faces. But if not, here is a definition that might just motivate you:
“taxpayer has the meaning assigned by subsection 248(1), but does not include a natural person or a partnership.
entity means a person (other than a natural person) or a legal arrangement, such as a corporation, partnership, trust or foundation.
As you can see, the trick is all in the corporate (government) use of language as a weapon against men and women. And they keep these important definitions spread throughout the multi-paged legislation knowing few could get through the whole document.
Now, for the case law defining ‘individual’ in law and how individuals can relate to one another as settled in the courts:
From the dictionary of Canadian Law by Daphne A Dukelow, 4th ed_, Scarborough, Ontario, 2011, Carswell -- 9780779823260
“INDIVIDUAL. n. 1. A natural person. Rudolf Wolf & Co. v. Canada, 46 C.R.R. 263 at 69, 43 Admin. L.R. 1,41 C.P.C. (2d) 1, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 695, 106 N.R. 1, 69 D.L.R. (4th) 392, 39 O.A.C. 1, the court per Cory J. 2. A human being as opposed to a corporation. 3. In our view, the use of the word “individual” in s. 12 relates to a sole proprietorship. If it was the intention of the Legislature to engulf citizens in their personal capacity, outside a sole proprietorship, and outside the corporate veil, in what is little short of confiscatory legislation, they must do so in clear, unambiguous language. We conclude that the : Legislature did not use clear enough language to denote such personal responsibility. 550557 Ontario Ltd. v. Framingham, 1991 CarswellOnt 184, 5 C.B.R. (3d) 204, 91 C.L.L.C. 14,031, 4 O.R. (3d) 571, 49 O.A.C. 376, 4 B.L.R. (2d) 75, (sub nom. 550551 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario (Employment Standards Officer)) 82 D.L.R. (4th) 731 (Div. Ct.) Montgomery J. for the court. 4.
An individual of a wildlife species, whether living or dead, at any developmental stage and includes larvae, embryos, eggs, sperm, seeds, pollen, spores and asexual propagules. Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, s. 2.5. A natural person, but does not include a partnership, unincorporated association, unincorporated syndicate, unincorporated organization, trust, or a natural person in the capacity of trustee, executor, administrator or other legal representative. Securities acts. 6. A person other than a corporation. Income Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215, s. 1.
Definitions in the Income Tax of Ontario (bet you didn’t know Ontario had an Income Tax Act!):
Income Tax Act, RSO 1990 c. 12
“corporation” includes an incorporated company and a “corporation incorporated in Canada” includes a corporation incorporated in any part of Canada before or after it became part of Canada;
“individual” means a person other than a corporation and includes a trust referred to in subdivision k of Division B of Part I of the Federal Act;
“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any body corporate and politic, and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;”
The following are not specifically included in any Act we could find, but are clarified in various law dictionaries and legal websites, such as Legal Clarity. The following explanations are summarized from those various sources:
“private person”
“Any individual who is a citizen or national of the nation.
Any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity that is organized or exists under the laws of any state, regardless of whether it is for profit or not.
This definition encompasses both individuals and various types of organizations, highlighting their legal recognition in the US and Canada.
A private person is someone not prominent in public affairs or widely famous. Their daily activities and personal lives are not subject to public scrutiny or government oversight. This classification means they operate outside the direct gaze of public interest.
Private individuals are afforded legal protections that safeguard their personal lives and reputations. A fundamental protection is the right to privacy, which includes safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures; this means law enforcement requires a warrant based on probable cause to search a private person’s property.
This term refers to the legal rights and obligations that are held by an individual within the context of their private life. These rights and obligations can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the individual.”
“private individual” means
an individual acting only for themselves and not representing any group, company or organisation. (UK)
a natural person (USA)
any natural person acting in the context of a private independent economic activity (European Union)
Now let’s look at how those terms and definitions in the Income Tax Act (Canada and Ontario) align with the terms and definitions of the same or similar terms in the Municipal Act, 2001 --
Section 1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as of June 2025.
“Interpretations.
“person” includes a municipality unless the context otherwise requires.”
** Note: remember that the term ‘includes’ has the same meaning as ‘means’. Thus, ‘person’ MEANS a municipality… .
** Note: That ‘context’ referred to is stated in Section 9 of the Municipal Act as we noted above -- a municipality has the powers of a “natural person” means to any normal non-lawyer reader that a municipality, having the powers and authority of an individual human being, has no more power to exercise their authority on another’s private property than your neighbor has, or that you have over your neighbor’s property.
But once you know ‘person’ means corporation, association, partnership, trusts and other non-human legal entities, you start to understand how they gave corporations masquerading as governments the right to run roughshod over the rest of us.
Given these provisions in the Municipal Act, the municipality cannot enforce regulations, by-laws, policies and mandates on property not belonging to them, unless they know something the owner doesn’t.
The trick is that they know they hold legal title to your property through your incorporation into their corporation combined with the Land Titles Act that says the municipal corporation can be your ‘agent’ without your knowledge or consent -- and they know that you don’t know that.
However, they did all that through fraud, and fraud voids everything in law.
The limitations of municipal councils in passing by-laws for the Municipality are provided as follows:
Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001:
“Bylaws: A lower and upper tier municipality may pass bylaws subject to the rules in subsection (4) respecting the following matters:
1. Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.
2. Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations and of its local boards and their operations.
3. Financial management of the municipality and its local boards.
4. Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.
5. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality, including respecting climate change. (See O. Reg. 599/06 below)
6. Health, safety and well-being of persons.
7. Services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide under subsection (1).
8. Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection.
Now, go back over that provision and replace the word ‘person’ with corporation, and you see that it has power and authority over its corporation, not over individual men and women/natural persons.
**Note that the weasel words were underlined for emphasis. Knowing that the municipality is now a privately-controlled UN-linked corporation, the public assets they ‘acquired’ with taxpayer dollars have been turned over to the corporation to ‘exercise its authority’ over ITS BUSINESS, not yours.
**Note how they slipped in a reference to ‘respect’ the UN’s fraudulent Climate Change narrative. This alone makes it clear a UN NGO lawyer wrote this legislation, and the province rubber-stamped it. Even though a climate change crisis has been proven not to exist, private municipal corporations must respect the narrative because they are controlled by the UN; they must pretend that the ‘emperor is wearing clothes’.
**Note that ‘protection of persons and property’ refers to the corporation’s property, not yours! As you saw above, ‘Person’ definitions do not include men and women and their property, only corporations and corporate bodies such as municipalities and their property.
The only reason that such by-laws can be passed or not passed, is if the subject matter of the by-law pertains to the provision of services to the public, where ‘public’ used to mean men and women, since serving the public was supposed to be the ‘service’ corporation’s only task.
There is not a single reference to municipal activity on PRIVATE PROPERTY, only on PUBLIC PROPERTY.
***The ONLY reference to “private property” is where the municipality has “acquired” private property; and once they acquire it, it then becomes a “public asset” belonging to the municipal corporation, not before.
Logically, as stated in point (4) above, ‘public assets’ must be lawfully acquired before the municipal councilors can exercise their authority over the asset.
Municipalities can lawfully ‘acquire’ private property through:
(a) purchase,
(b) lease agreement registered on the property’s Title,
(c) expropriation,
(d) if a private property owner dedicated his land to the municipality.
It is not legally-acquired property when they use lawfare, fraud, threats, intimidation to force you off your property.
What ignorant and reckless municipal councilors have done, instead, is to delegate their explicitly-stated duty to serve us, along with their authority and powers, to the corporations providing the service, who in turn use unlawful means, such as home invasions, absurd property standards and clean yards bylaws, malicious building code charges, lawfare, gross misrepresentations, etc., to deprive private property owners of the use of their property.
To recover use of their property, the property owner must use the corrupt courts at which time municipal lawyers and corrupt Judges drive them into bankruptcy.
Law firms are the most effective ‘hit men’ as most citizens have no chance against the deep pockets of the municipality. In addition to the loss of use and enjoyment of the property, municipal corporations and their lawyers work to emotionally and financially exhaust the property owner whose own taxes are used to pay the legal attackers.
Municipal councilors are routinely approving expenditures for litigation against innocent private property owners amounting to millions of dollars, when that litigation is without justification and is unlawful.
As you will learn, municipal corporations are for-profit service corporations controlling municipalities, hording hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus … and using ignorant and reckless municipal councilors to facilitate their criminality.
There is no law or act that gives any municipality the authority and power to create bylaws to regulate private property without the consent of the property owner. They assume that power and authority because they know that incorporation of the people into their scheme renders them ‘owners’ of the incorporated people and their possessions, without the incorporated inhabitants knowing it. But fraud vitiates everything; the fraud that incorporated us without our consent has likewise made the incorporation invalid/void.
— End of Series 1 Part 3 MUNICIPAL FRAUD —
In our next MUNICIPAL FRAUD newsletter, we will examine the ways that Ontario municipalities have taken unlawful control of private property using language to trick the property owners.
Thank you for your attention and any help that you can send our way, from sharing widely to sharing more evidence that you may have with us, or tips or subscriptions. While we could use financial support, it is more important to us that this information gets out to as many people as possible, as fast as possible.
Also, please let us know if any of our hyperlinks have stopped working so that we can fix them. Thank you.
People-United
people-united.ca
E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me