Forum Replies Created

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 22, 2003 at 12:54 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"
    Quote:
    “HOWEVER THE RULE APPLIES WHERE YOU MUST LIST, SPECIFY, AND ENUMERATE YOUR SET LIKES I HAVE ABOVE BEFORE YOU USE THE WORD “INCLUDING” IN A SENSE OF – ALSO -“

    Is this your own rule of grammar?

    On what authority do you base this? Who says that?

    Includes = “embraces” (dictionary definition.)

    Prime numbers = the set of whole numbers that are divisible only by themselves and 1. (definition.)

    I say … “The set of prime numbers includes [embraces] the number 2.”

    Does my sentence imply that the only prime number is 2?

    Are you honestly saying that in order for one to say that the number 2 is included in the set of prime numbers that I must list all other prime numbers first?

    Under your “rule” I must say … “The States of the Union are Alabama, Alaska, [etc.] and includes also the State of Michigan” … somehow, I can't just say “the States of the Union includes Michigan” and have it be understood that I'm not excluding the other 49 States?

    Please remind me not to have a conversation with you … you have strange rules.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 21, 2003 at 9:58 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    So, in other words, the phrase “the set of prime numbers includes the number 2” means that the only prime number is 2?

    And that's how you understand the English language to be?

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 21, 2003 at 1:14 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    If I say “the recipe for brownies includes eggs” … is it safe to assume that the only ingredient to make the brownies is eggs?

    ____ Yes.

    ____ No.

    SONIK'S ANSWER: YES

    Well, I guess nothing more be said … your answer speaks for itself.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 20, 2003 at 3:29 am in reply to: SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]

    An even better quote from the Fleming case …

    Quote:
    “The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to 'spend money in aid of the 'general welfare,” Helvering v. Davis, supra, 301 U.S. at page 640, 57 S.Ct. at page 908, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.” – Fleming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 20, 2003 at 3:18 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    You have quoted the Montello Salt case which found a particular use of the word of the word “including” to be limiting (if the court would have found otherwise in that case an obviously unjust result would have resulted.) But the Montello Salt case itself concedes that “including” can be understood as “also.”

    I have cited the case of American Surety Co. v. Marotta (and other cases) which have shown that “includes” is usually understood as a term of enlargement.

    The thing that can definitely be said is this: it depends on the context.

    However, as I have said, when a term is defined by the statute, it is that meaning which controls. The term “includes” and “including” are defined at 7701( c ) and it is that meaning which controls. The command of the statute is clear.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 20, 2003 at 3:12 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    While we're talking about the word “includes” …

    Quote:
    The Schroeders also contend that they are non-resident aliens to the United States, seeming to interpret “United States” to mean only where the seat of its government is located, the District of Columbia. In their capacity as non-resident aliens, they assert they can have no tax liability to the United States. This position is wholly without merit. The term “United States” is properly used to “designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 671- 72 (1945), overruled on other grounds sub nom. Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984). The sovereignty of the United States extends to all the states comprising it. The United States was not created as a separate state, but as a union of other states, of which each state is a part. Thus, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the “United States” referred to those states which had adopted the Constitution. Since that time, the United States has come to comprise the fifty states. Furthermore, when the United States came into being it was not limited to the territory of the District of Columbia, which did not yet even exist. Instead, the authority of the United States under the Constitution was understood to extend to the area bounded by the “several states.”

    In addition, the United States Constitution provides for the admission of new states to the Union. See United States Const. art. IV, ? 3, cl. 1. Pursuant to that provision, Nebraska voluntarily entered into the Union created by the United States Constitution on March 1, 1867. The Proclamation of Admission of the State reads:

    [The people of Nebraska] now ask for admission into the Union: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America, in Congress Assembled, That the constitution and State government which the people of Nebraska have formed for themselves be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said State of Nebraska shall be, and is hereby, declared to be one of the United States of America; and is hereby admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever.

    Thus, Nebraska entered the Union by actions initiated by its own citizens. As a state of the Union, it became subject to the laws of the United States, including those enacted by Congress dealing with the generation of revenue for the federal government. [FN7] Nebraska is a part of the whole of the United States of America, rather than a state foreign to it. Thus, its residents are residents of the United States. Therefore, the Schroeders are not “non- resident aliens” to the United States. As a result, any claim that they are not subject to its revenue laws because they are non-resident aliens is without merit. [FN8]

    The Schroeders also argue that Nebraska is not a State as that term is defined by 26 U.S.C. ?? 3121(e)(1) and (2), 4612(a)(4)(A), and 7701(a)(9) and (10) (Supp. V 1993). The Schroeders in citing these statutes in support of their position, fail to note that these sections define the stated term (for example, “State” and “United States” in ? 3121(e)(1) & (2), “United States” in ? 4612(a)(4)(A), and “United States” and “State” in ? 7701(a)(9) & (10)) to be more inclusive than might otherwise be commonly understood. This result is easily reached by reading each of these sections in conjunction with the definition of “includes” and “including” contained in 26 U.S.C. ? 7701© (Supp. V 1993), which states that “[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the definition of “State” clearly includes what would be its commonly understood meaning–one of the fifty states forming a part of the entire United States. So, too, with “United States,” the Union and sovereign entity produced through the association of all of the states. The Schroeders attempt, unsuccessfully, to remove from the language of the statutes its commonly understood meaning and usage. [FN9]

    Albers v. IRS, 1996 WL 196657, 77 A.F.T.R.2d 96-1234

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 20, 2003 at 2:31 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    Sonik, do not try to evade the question I asked by adding conditions and confusion about foreigners or what some chinese or russian might understand, or whether a french guy living in antartica born on December 31, 1132, might have thought.

    I asked you … a person who speaks english and presumably has a minimum of knowledge of the culinary arts … a very simple question.

    If I say “the recipe for brownies includes eggs” … is it safe to assume that the only ingredient to make the brownies is eggs?

    ____ Yes.

    ____ No.

    This is common English … understood by the average person who speaks English … it isn't rocket science … and tax protestors will evade simple questions when plainly asked and which do damage to their theories.

    Please answer the question.

    I know you *want* to believe some conspiracy about the word “includes.” But the above sentence is not some tricky usage of the English language and is hardly “deceptive.” Your failure to directly answer the question and to try to rephrase the query is typical avoidance when confronted with a simple example which does damage to your position.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 20, 2003 at 2:14 am in reply to: SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]

    I'll tell you what … I have provided citations to court cases and congressional hearings.

    You have provided … what? Your opinion?

    I see lots of assertions … but nothing of substance. You provide no legal authority to support your position … nothing.

    You show me where “U.S. citizenship” is founded on contract. You show me where the terms of the agreement are … where the consideration is … and any legal authority which supports your assertions. Show me where anyone has used your opinions to win in any court.

    Furthermore, we'll get to a discussion of the term “person” and other minutae at the appropriate time. Right now we're trying to figure out whether Social Security is contractual and you have yet to show me (or anyone else) anything of substance. I have shown by numerous citations that Social Security is not contractual and you've given mere opinion.

    Time to put up …

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 19, 2003 at 10:19 pm in reply to: SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]

    So, in other words, the Supreme Court cases, Congressional hearings, and statements of the SSA, all saying that Social Security is not contractual … well, that just doesn't matter because you *want* to believe it is contractual.

    Tell me, when it comes down to it, whose statements carry more weight … George Mercier's … or the Supreme Court's?

    The Supreme Court says its not contractual … as far as you and I should be concerned, that's the end of the story.

    And, if the government says it's not contractual … well, isn't that what you want in the first place? … to not be tied by these *supposed* contracts? The government is saying there is no contract … so what's the problem?

    Are you looking for a conspiracy where there is none? Would it be a blow to your ego to admit error? Do not be handcuffed by your beliefs?

    Quote:
    “Everything that you are a party to with the gov. is contract.” – Ice

    That makes for a nice assertion … but, the Supreme Court may have different ideas …

    Quote:
    “Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract.” – Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134

    Ok, well now we know that taxation is not contractual … where does that leave your assertion?

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 19, 2003 at 3:04 pm in reply to: SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]

    The Social Security Administration briefly explains why Social Security is not contractual (its because Congress has reserved the right to alter, amend, or repeal the legislation.)

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 19, 2003 at 2:54 pm in reply to: SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]

    A contract is not merely an “agreement”- it is more than just two people agreeing to something. Generally, a contract requires that there be a bargain, with a manifestation of assent to the bargain, and it also requires consideration (generally some type of performance or promise to perform).

    The reason that Social Security is not a contract is very simple – Congress has reserved its right to repeal the legislation – which in turn means you have no rights to the benefits should Congress repeal the act.

    The following is from the government's brief in the case of Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619; one of the Supreme Court cases upholding provisions of Social Security. The government argued that the benefits were gratuities, not contractual benefits …

    Quote:
    Title II

    Title II relates to Old Age Benefits.  These are gratuities (not based on contract, but based on a Congressional direction expressly subject to amendment or repeal [Section 1104]), to be paid by the national government directly to individual persons.  The Title states to whom benefits are to be paid and how they are measured.  It also states what methods are to be utilized in preparing for, and in actually making, benefit payments under this Title.  It does not endeavor to particularize any funds in the Treasury as the source of appropriations for benefit payments.

    In 1953 the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on Social Security and one of the issues they delved into was whether or not there was a contract between the individual and the government under Social Security.

    Mr. Altmeyer was the first Social Security Commissioner; his admissions are very revealing.

    Quote:
    Mr. Altmeyer.  Yes, sir.  Now, in justice to Mr. Witte, and because of the importance of this legal question, which I have no doubt will be raised, and has been raised by the chairman of the subcommittee on previous occasions, it is important to note that Mr. Witte uses the expression “insurance contract” not as a lawyer would use that term.  This insurance is established as a matter of statutory right. There is no individual contract between the beneficiary and the government.

    Mr. Dingell.  Congress knew that, did it not?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  Yes, of course. I am sure that it did.

    Chairman Curtis.  Mr. Altmeyer, when you finish I want to ask you a thing or two on that.

    Mr. Altmeyer.  I want to make it clear that there Mr. Witte was speaking for himself as a private individual; that I believe he used the expression “insurance contract” in an unlawyerlike fashion, and he would correct it, I am sure, if he were asked to do so, to indicate that he meant a definite statutory right enforceable by law.

    Mr. Eberharter.  And you never tried to give the impression that each individual had a contract with the Government?

    Mr Altmeyer.  I beg your pardon.

    Mr. Eberharter.  You have never tried to give the impression that individuals had a contract with the Government?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  Not that I recall; no, sir.

    Chariman Curtis.  Mr. Altmeyer, it is your view that the title II does not provide an insurance contract?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  In the sense of an individual contract it does not.

    Chairman Curtis.  The individual has no enforceable contract against the government? Is that correct?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  You are putting words in my mouth.

    Chairman Curtis. I will ask you that.

    Mr. Altmeyer.  He has no contract.  So, therefore, whether or not it is enforceable or unenforceable is beside the point.

    Chairman Curtis.  He has no contract?

    Mr. Dingell. As an individual.

    Chairman Curtis.  The individual who perhaps was 21 years of age in 1937 and who has been in covered employment since 1937, and will have to continue to pay these taxes until he is 65, has no contract? Is that your position?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  That is right.

    Chairman Curtis.  And he has no insurance contract?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  That is right.

    Chairman Curtis.  It is  a statutory right?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  It is a statutory right enforceable by law.

    Chairman Curtis. Now, could Congress change that statutory right.

    Mr. Altmeyer.  Yes; and it has done so to improve and liberalize the benefits time and again, and it will do so in the future, I am sure.

    * * *

    Chairman Curtis.  Now, a statutory right can be changed by the duly constituted elected body, can it not?

    Mr. Altmeyer.  It certainly can.

    * * *

    Chairman Curtis.  I understand that.  Until the Congress  changes the law, we are all agreed that the administrative agencies have to carry out the law.  If a benefit is provided, it has to be given, and the people are entitled to enforce their benefit to that extent.We have stated from the beginning that we wanted to make an analysis and fact finding study of social security.  I want all these people who have paid to know whether or not they have a contract with the government.

    * * *

    But referring to those statements like “A social insurance card is an insurance policy” — a “policy” to the minds of most people, in the generally accepted meaning of the term, means a contract that cannot be changed by either party.

    The people who have been covered under social security do not have a contract that cannot be changed by the one party, the Government, is that not true.

    Mr. Altmeyer.  Of course, I am amazed, Mr. Chairman, that it took all this time for us to have a meeting of the minds, * * * There has never been any confusion so far as that.

    Committee on Ways and Means, House, Hearings, Vol. 1, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, 1953, pgs 918-20

    Later on Mr. Curtis reiterates the point that the Social Security Card is not an “insurance policy” (it is not a contract) …

    Quote:
    Chairman Curtis.  That is true.  However, if the government can take away one thing from an individual, it can take it away from all of them.

    Mr. Altmeyer.  Do you think it is likely to do so?

    Chairman Curtis.  I think not, not for some time.  I do not know, Mr. Altmeyer, what will happen 25 years from now.  I do not think that the boys and girs who are just starting now to pay this tax should be told that their social security card is their insurance policy when they have no insurance.  I do not want my government to engage in that kind of chicanery.

    Committee on Ways and Means, House, Hearings, Vol. 1, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, 1953, pg's 1007-8

    As can be seen, the government held hearings on whether or not Social Security was contractual or not – they quite clearly reach the conclusion that it is not. The reason why they were investigating that facet of SS is because you had members of the SS Administration running around giving the impression that people had a right to the benefits and that they had “insurance.” This was a sort of selling point to molify the people and put them at ease … it was to reassure them that they would be receiving the benefits. Of course, the promoters of SS portrayed it as “social insurance” … by which they meant that it was an agreement of society to provide something like “insurance” benefits … even though there was no absolute entitlement to the benefits. Social insurance was not true, contractually based insurance … it is a gratuity … a favor of society … paid for by tax dollars … not by true insurance premiums.

    On this point Sonik is right … social security is not founded on contract … not at all. The ability of one party (the government) to escape liability (by repealing the legislation) means that social security is not a contract. Its as simple as that.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 19, 2003 at 6:11 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    Well, unfortunately, your argument went off into the hinterlands of the irrelevant. Your diversion into what lawyers know, or congressmen know, due process of law, etc. is not pertinent to the discussion of this thread … which is how the term “includes” is to be understood.

    Please try to stick to the KISS principle.

    If I say “the recipe for brownies includes eggs” … is it safe to assume that the only ingredient to make the brownies is eggs?

    ____ Yes.

    ____ No.

    While the recipe for brownies “comprises” or “embraces” eggs in its formula, the sentence (and a good dose of common sense and logic) cannot be construed to limit the recipe for brownies to only eggs.

    This shows the misunderstanding of the definition of includes as “comprising” or “embracing” a particular object. To say that something “comprises” or “embraces” a particular object DOES NOT mean that it “comprises only” or “embraces only” that object which is included. One cannot logically say that the recipe which “includes eggs” means that the recipe only embraces or contains or is comprised of eggs. Such a reading is surely not warranted.

    On the other hand, if I say “compound X includes only A, B, and C” … I think it safe to say that the evident meaning is that X is comprised of only A, B, and C. The word “only” modifying the word “includes” is clearly intended to limit the scope of what X is comprised of.

    Furthermore, I see no difference in “the recipe for brownies includes eggs” and “the recipe for brownies includes, but is not limited to, eggs.” While the second sentence is certainly unambiguous about the fact that the recipe is not limited to eggs … it would be ridiculous to suggest that the first sentence should be read to say that the recipe includes only eggs (on the idea that the omission of the words “but is not limited to” somehow affects the meaning.

    Of course the use of the word “includes” can depend on context …. “includes only” is clearly limiting … “includes, but is not limited to” is clearly expansive.”

    But, the fact that you even consider “includes, but is not limited to” as expansive shows that “includes” CAN be used in an expansive, non-limiting manner.

    In addition, you are incorrect to rely on the expression “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” as an aid in construing the meaning of the word “includes.” The Supreme Court has never held that maxim up as some absolute rule.

    Quote:
    “The position taken by the defendants in error, and sustained by the district court, is, that that extension of particular sections is an implied exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  We are unable to assent to that position. The maxim invoked expresses a rule of construction, not of substantive law, and serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when that is not otherwise manifest. In such instances it is of deciding importance; in others, not.” – U.S. v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 518

    Quote:
    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent. Where a statute contains a grant of power enumerating certain things which may be done and also a general grant of power which, standing alone, would include these things and more, the general grant may be given full effect if the context shows that the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive.” – Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 206

    Quote:
    “The maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' is an aid to construction not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” – Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88

    Finally, dictionary definitions of “includes” are simply inappropriate where the word “includes” is defined in the code at 26 USC 7701( c ). As is well known, when a word is defined by law, that meaning controls (and when a word is not defined, one generally uses the commonly understood meaning.)

    In the following case, the government actually tried to argue that “includes” as defined at 7701( c ) was not a term of enlargement and the plaintiff argued that it was expansive … the court looked to the meaning of includes and found it to be a term of enlargement … which directly contradicts your interpretation of that statute:

    Quote:
    “Under the Internal Revenue Code, the word “levy” merely “includes,” or encompasses, the power-to-seize definition. The word “includes,” the Code explains, “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of” levy. 26 U.S.C. ? 7701©. “Levy,” therefore, is not simply a synonym for “seizure” and nothing more. Rather, the term “levy” in the Code denotes everything else that it otherwise denotes in American law.” – Miller v. US, 93CV7015

    Thus, while the government was trying to say that “levy” includes “only” the power to seize … the court stated that “levy” did not include only the power to seize … but includes what was otherwise within the meaning of the term in American law.

    The courts do not view the definition of the word “includes” at 7701( c ) as a limiting term … at all. Indeed, they're very hostile such a notion as many tax protestors have inconveniently found out.

  • BrianRookard

    Member
    October 18, 2003 at 4:02 am in reply to: New evidence on "Includes"

    The case of U.S. v. Bridges, 344 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2003,) does not show anything about the meaning of the words “includes” except that the phrase “including, but not limited to” cannot be used in a search warrant to describe what is to be searched. Such phraseology is too open ended and does not “particularly describe” what is to be searched as required by the 4th Amendment.

    However, I fail to see how that says anything about the use of the word “includes” in other contexts (like in statutes.)

    For example, the Supreme Court in American Surety Co. v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 said:

    Quote:
    “In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, 'include' is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.” – American Surety Co. v. Marotta, id at 517

    This case was cited with approval in the case of Koenig v. Johnson, 163 P.2d 746 (Cal.App. 1946) where the court discussed the difference between “include” and “mean” or “meant” at length:

    Quote:
    In Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, 119 P. 509, Ann.Cas.1913B, 1062, one of the questions before the court was whether a covenant running with certain land forever prohibiting the use of firearms thereon, constituted an 'encumbrance.' Section 1114 of the Civil Code declared that 'the term 'encumbrances' includes taxes, assessments, and all liens upon real property'; and it was contended that since the restriction against the use of firearms was not therein mentioned, it could not be considered an encumbrance. But the court held that the section did not exclude limitations of a perfect title other than those enumerated; that the word 'includes' is not, ordinarily, a word of limitation, but rather of enlargement. That case is cited in American Surety Co. v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513, 517, 53 S.Ct. 260, 262, 77 L.Ed. 466, 468, in which the words 'shall include' in a tax act were held not the equivalent of 'shall mean' or 'shall include only.'

    In Peerless Carbon Black Co. v. Sheppard, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 996, a tax statute imposed an occupation tax upon every person manufacturing or producing carbon black, and provided: 'The term 'carbon black' as herein used includes all black pigment produced in whole or in part from natural gas, casinghead gas or residue gas by the impinging of a flame upon as channel disk,' etc. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 7047, subd. 45(f). And it was contended that carbon black produced by other methods was excluded. the opinion states, 113 S.W.2d at pages 997, 998:

    n thus defining the occupation or business taxed, appellant has substituted the term 'by which is meant' instead of the word 'includes' as used in the taxing act, and apparently contends that the term 'by which is meant' is identical with the word 'includes.' This contention is not sustained. The word 'includes' as used in the act is not identical with nor equivalent to the word 'meant,' or the clause 'y which is meant,' because the authorities hold that such a word or clause is less elastic than the word 'includes.' 97 A.L.R. 1382. 'The word 'includes' is not, ordinarily, a word of limitation, but rather of enlargement.' Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, 119 P. 509, 511, Ann.Cas.1913B, 1062. The word 'includes' and 'including' are regarded by the authorities as being identical or equivalent to each other; and the authorities uniformly hold that unless the context in which such words are used requires, they are never regarded as being identical with or equivalent to 'mean and include,' nor with such less elastic words and terms as 'meant,' 'meaning,' or 'by which is meant.' Lederer v. Penn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 258 F. 81; United States v. The Betsey and Charlotte, 4 Cranch 443, 2 L.Ed. 673; 12 C.J. 528, and note 52. In 31 C.J. 395, ? 3C, it is said that while the word 'including' is susceptible of different shades of meaning, 'it is generally employed as a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, or of enumeration.' The cases cited from numerous jurisdictions sustain this text. In consequence, it follows that the use of the word 'includes,' as used in the taxing act under consideration, instead of some less elastic word or term, such as 'meaning,' 'meant,' or 'by which is meant,' would seem clearly to imply that the Legislature did not intend to use the word 'includes' as one of limitation or of enumeration, but rather of enlargement, or as illustrative of those intended to be included within the taxing act. See, also, 4 Words and Phrases, First Series, pp. 3499, 3500; 2 Words and Phrases, Second Series, pp. 1007, 1008.'

    So, while I can see that a search warrant cannot be unlimited in scope, I don't see how that goes to the meaning of the word “includes.”

    Furthermore, if you imply that “includes” is a word of limitation, then the court should have found the search warrant valid since the word “includes” would be equivalent to “means” (under tax protestor logic.) But, since the court found the search warrant invalid, they must've thought that the words “includes, but is not limited to” was obviously expansive – and since overly broad, it did not particularly describe what was to be searched.