Yes I am also interested in this question

Generally, in legal proceedings if a word isn't explicitly defined, then you reach for the dictionary. This (and common sense) will tell you that a "person" includes a real person. The term "person" is used in around 1400 Acts in the NZ statue book and, depending on the context, will mean real people, or corporate bodies or both. Context is all, so when a "young person" is mentioned in the young persons Act, they don't mean a corporate body and they don't need to explicitly state that

The defn in s29 of the Income Tax Act *includes* corporate entities, it doesn't exclude real people. This definition is there to make in clear that where a "person" is required to do something it includes companies.

Sometimes when the law drafters want to make it clear that they are referring to a real person only, they will use the term "natural person" and, in fact, natural person is used 420 times within the Income Tax Act.

Blacks law dictionary states
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.
'Rank' isnt clear
person appeared 10944 times in 1745 sections
Natural Person as showed up nothing , can you show me in the tax act 2007 where natural person is and
man appeared 0 times in 0 sections

I'm not sure why you are searching a generic law dictionary when you have full access to the NZ statues here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/searchadv... ("Acts" are Acts and "Legislative Instruments" are generally Regulations)

Navigate to the Act. In the "search within this act" box, type "natural person" including the parenthesis (so it searches on the phrase and not the words)
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...

...including the speech marks.... I meant

thats legislation and not law thats why Im using a law dictionary to get the correct meaning
For more than a century, Black's Law Dictionary has been the gold standard for the language of law.

The word "includes" written into the NZ legislation is a deception; it gives the impression that it is including more words in addition......no that's not what its doing, whenever you see & read the word "INCLUDE" in any clause of the legislation, it is really saying that the word you see in that clause included, is the only meaning there is no other, all rest of other words to be defined have been excluded....for example; Births, deaths, marriages and relationship registration act 1995, s2, birth includes stilbirth, but does not include a miscarriage; STILLBIRTH & MISCARRIAGE ARE THE SAME THING; so what they have done is deceived the reader, their saying they have included the word stillbirth to mean birth and excluded the word miscarriage, which is the same thing "Include" means to include one and exclude the other......so when you try and search for born you will never be able to find it, there is no interpretation in the NZ legislation for the meaning born, so born has been excluded and birth has been included, and that is the only meaning and that's why the word INCLUDE is used in certain clauses, to highlight the real use of the word........and this is why we have to use law dictionaries when reading NZ legislation, because their laws are not defined.....blacks law dictionary and bouveirs law, used world wide, buttersworth law dictionary NZ;

If a court has claimed that a person is defined as a human being, and that claim has become a case law; then they are definitely not talking about a man or woman........

Human being does not mean a man or a woman or anything natural......

Judges use latin language - cursive language - person & human beings are of these....

The judges sitting there giving orders actually have no jurisdiction to make any orders or claims.........their all assumptions -

Everything you said about the way inclusive ("Includes") definitions work in New Zealand is completely wrong.

Any definition found in a New Zealand Act (legislation or statute) which contains the words "includes" means that whatever is listed as the definition is not complete. It means that some words which are not written in the legislation may be included in the definition anyways. However, when a definition uses the word "means", then it does exclude all other possible definitions.

Also, still-birth and miscarriage are NOT the same. Stillbirth refers to the delivery of a baby who has died, after the 20th week of pregnancy. Miscarriage refers to the loss of a baby before the 20th week of pregnancy. Nevertheless, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 specifically excludes miscarriages as a "birth" for the purpose of that Act only. However, miscarriages are not excluded simply by virtue of still-births being included under the definition. Instead, they are excluded because section 2 explicitly states that miscarriages are not considered as a "birth". Now, that Act only defines "births" as INCLUDING a still-birth. No other term is mentioned. Is a healthy birth considered a "birth" under the Act, even though it's not mentioned? The answer is obviously yes.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying when you claim that "Judges have no jurisdiction" because Parliament reaffirmed that Judges have the power to interpret the meaning of legislation under section 10 of the Legislation Act 2019.

Finally, you would benefit from learning the difference between "their" and "they're". It helps to look credible if you want to make such claims, and have people believe you.

Lets break it down in English:

The NZ legislation is written in english with the definitions of latin; the latin phrase for include, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is: [when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are not included]

Birth; the act of being wholly brought into the world, the whole body must be detached from that of the mother, to make the birth complete; [stillbirth] https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/bouvier/bo...

Births, deaths, marriages and relationships registration act 1995, s2

Miscarriage - an issue from its birth mother, before the 21st week of pregnancy.....a dead foetus

Dead foetus - whether the unbilical cord or placenta is severed or detached from its "birth mother" breathed or showed any sign of life.

Born / borne........... carried, sustained, endured past tense and particle of bear, not related to birth.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=born...

Aborning (adj) "while being born" https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=born...

Born does not exist in the NZ legislation

The name on a birth certificate looks identical to the name you are known by.... but if you read the small print, it clearly states, it is not identity of the one who presents it. So if anyone is in possession of one of these, and is using it as true, you can be prosecuted under the crimes act 1961, why?

Because it is not true, it is not your name, it has been copyright and is now owned by the NZ government agency, that's why.

In reality, the NZ government agency only owns the paper its written on, but does not own the name, they can never own your name unless you intentionally agreed to give it up.

And because people use this so called birth certificate, without knowing, they become ignorant of the law.

How do people get social security numbers, licenses, passports, tax numbers, what form of identification do agencies always ask for.......................that's right....................they ask for a "birth certificate" .

What do banks ask for, what did they ask for originally when there was no photo identification, yes they asked for a birth certificate, my my this birth certificate is very popular, considering it doesn't identify you.

The registrar of BDM is in charge of this big big secret, they have knowledge of what the birth certificate is. They know it is a security, they know it is a bond, they know that anyone who is in possession of it, has become the debtor, and will now be obligated for the debts and liabilities of it, caused by the NZ government.....Oh my God.

And now that you have a license or passport with a photo on it................what do the agencies now ask for ..........................that's right................................. they ask for the photo id, so lets get this right................ they not only have stolen your name by copyright and placed it on a piece of paper, they have now got a photo of you on their issued cards,they have now changed your status from equity to legal, from creditor to debtor and you are now under the statutes of "admiralty / maritime law.

You are now a customer, client, taxpayer, citizen, res-ident, employee, soldier, officer, agent, your no longer, a man or woman with rights, standing under common law, consitutional law, Gods law, universal and natural law

According to their records, you are their legal person, and you are now subjected to their statutes their rules........................and we know what person means don't we...........................that's right...........it means, entity, company, local body government, corporation, any of these that have the status to sue and be sued.

A person can never ever mean a man or a woman, any word that has the meaning person will never refer to a man or woman because you were not birthed, you were born.

So in my view, i am thinking that, wherever these laws came from, such as by-laws, statutes, acts, bills, codes, regulations, rules, guidelines, provisions its looking like they were designed to control, enslave, enforce, subject all people of the earth to comply............because these are Roman civil constructs of words used to trick and fool the mass....................................wow

Clarify: Judges do not have any jurisdiction to sit up at a bench, above the people, in a room they call a court, without a tennis ball or tennis racket, and give orders, while they stand under "admiralty / maritime law...............

Admiralty / maritime laws only apply on ships on the water not on land.

The judge is practising admiralty law on dry dock, this is why they tell people to come into the dock, or people automatically assume they need to go into the dock. Unlawful.

It is people in the flesh that the judge looks over from his bench, who are the real true crowns, the real true sovereigns, the creditors, who stand under common law jurisdiction, constitutional laws, Gods law universal and natural, these are the highest form of law on land.

Legal is not lawful; Judge is legal, people are lawful, judge has no more power than an employee working at Macdonalds...............the judge and prosecutors are trustees, the registrar is the administrator who appoints the judge...........

Any agents of the NZ government who practices, or enforces statutes under admiralty law on land is acting unlawful, and has no jurisdiction, and commits an act of treason against the people, the crown.

When a baby is born, you may hear the midwife say that the baby is crowning, or they can see the crown, that's exactly who you are.

Not to mention you are born on land your not born in the water, although the womb is water, but as God is our witness, the judge does not have any authority or jurisdiction to make orders or give determinations not on land.

I know this because i have done it, and it was recorded by witnesses, which is evidence to prove that the judge did not have any jurisdiction, practice makes perfect.