Abuse of “INCLUDES” is designed to DECEIVE you into consenting to taxation that you aren’t subject to

SOURCE: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 16.2.1.

The constitution REQUIRES what is called “reasonable notice” of what the law requires of you. See:

Reasonable notice is satisfied when the rules of statutory construction are observed, which require that the definition of a term must EXPRESSLY include EVERYTHING that is included. Everything not EXPRESSLY included is deemed to be PURPOSEFULLY excluded:

“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.  Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress’ use of the term “propaganda” in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation.{19} As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.“

[Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]

“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated’”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.” 

[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

Some legislatures attempt to skirt the above rules through the abuse of the word “includes” and “including”:

Utah Code

68-3-12

(1)(f) “Include,” “includes,” or “including” means that the items listed are not an exclusive list, unless the word “only” or similar language is used to expressly indicate that the list is an exclusive list.

The definition of “individual” in the Utah code then invokes “includes”:

Utah Code

59-10-103

(k) “Individual” means a natural person and includes aliens and minors.

The burden of proof of all those who want to insist that NATIONALS born or naturalized in the COUNTRY “United States” are statutory “individuals” therefore falls upon the government to provide a statute SOMEWHERE in the Utah Tax Code ONLY that EXPRESSLY includes anyone other than minors and aliens. If they can’t, then your CONSENT in some form is required to add yourself to the definition.

HOWEVER, even with consent, a private party has no authority to legislate. Adding to a statutory definition by your consent therefore cannot expand statutory definitions, because the power to legislate is reserved EXCLUSIVELY to the LEGISLATIVE branch and CANNOT be delegated. So NOT EVEN CONSENT can add “nationals” to the definition of “individual” above. And by “consent” we mean either YOUR consent, that of the judge, or even consent of the prosecutor. The creator of our Three Branch system of government explained why this is:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

[. . .]

In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”

[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, Book XI, Section 6, 1758;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

The Legislature can only make CIVIL rules for MEMBERS working for the government, whether in public offices or as CIVIL STATUTORY “citizens” and “residents”. Domicile or seeking public office are the methods of joining. Those who have not joined are nonresidents and “transient foreigners”. as we prove in:

1. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
2. Proof of Facts: “Citizenship” means PUBLIC OFFICER of a STATE or NATION, according to the etymology of the word, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/proof-of-facts-citizenship-means-public-officer-of-a-state-or-nation-according-to-the-etymology-of-the-word/

This SCAM with the word “includes” and “including” is therefore MALICIOUSLY designed to:

1. HIDE the process of CONSENTING to taxation in the case of NATIONALS so you FALSELY believe it is mandatory as a NATIONAL.
2. Send you on a wild goose chase looking for a statute that DOESN’T exist which DOES expressly include the thing the government self-servingly wants to PRESUME it includes. That is NOT your job, but the job of the MOVING PARTY, being the government, to satisfy the burden of proof that you are “expressly included” and that they have given you the constitutionally required “reasonable notice” of WHERE you are expressly included in the statutes. If you aren’t legally educated enough to FORCE them to satisfy this burden of proof in all enforcement actions, then you DEFAULT to CONSENTING to be “included” even if the law doesn’t expressly allow it.

Thus, your own legal ignorance will be used against you to commit criminal identity theft as documented in: