The Corporate Lie

Discussion in 'US Taxes' started by Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. Learn what the legal industry is so desperately trying to hide from
    you with shills like Abbot the Retard!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    Exposing the lie, the whole lie and nothing but the lie!
    www.lexquadruplator.org

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) StaR, you run to another thread without answering how it is a
    government you claim is unreal and nonresistant can make statutory and
    case law which turn around cite as real? You talk about the “legal
    profession", but anyone so dense as not to recognize a painfully
    contradictory argument like yours couldn’t pass the bar exam much less
    get into law school.
     
    Abbot, Oct 31, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. Bwahahahaha "the bar", an infestation of parasites who are nothing
    but lying pieces of shit!! No thanks.

    "The United States was never a corporation..."."Assuming Canada is a
    corporation, which is not admitted by me..." - Mr. Stephen G. Jenuth
    from HO MacNEIL JENUTH Barristers & Solicitors

    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
    (1837)

    "Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
    governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
    grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
    purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
    objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
    are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
    the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

    "The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
    grant or charter of the separate states;"
    ----------
    A LAW DICTIONARY

    ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

    by John Bouvier

    CORPORATIONS

    5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
    capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
    Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
    against the United States without authority of law.

    6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
    and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
    and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
    understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
    obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
    States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
    Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

    "The only law concerning corporations, to which I conceive the least
    reference is to be had, is the common law of England on that subject.
    I need not repeat the observations I made in respect to the operation
    of that law in this country. The word 'corporations,' in its largest
    sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware
    of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be
    restricted or transcendant, is in this sense 'a corporation.' The
    King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29. b.
    So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement,
    1Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not
    only each State singly, but even the United States may without
    impropriety be termed "corporations."

    "As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
    politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual
    States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of
    powers.""
    ----------


    Learn the truth folks!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.org

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008
    #3
  4. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) StaR, you can post all you want but it won’t change the fact
    that the logical fallacy of the argument by ridicule, which you are
    using, is not a valid argument and it doesn’t befit one, such as you,
    who claims to be so smart. It should be clear to even the most casual
    reader that you can’t defend or even explain a theory you have been
    working on for more than a decade!

    You aren’t honest about your argument, and I believe you can't be
    honest about your own motivation. I believe you have concocted your
    hopelessly contradictory and inane argument not out of a search for
    truth, but simply because you are emotionally unable to accept the
    lawful authority of democratic governments.

    You want us to believe that governments gathered together by the
    people don’t exist, not because you have discovered a truth, but
    rather because you are little more than an emotional child trapped in
    a gimpy 47 year old's body. I believe that when we get down to it you
    are not much more than a 3 three old railing against the rules of the
    adult world.

    The U.S. Constitution is not a fantasy. If it were unreal you won't be
    able to (mis)quote case law based on it!

    No, the fantasy is your belief that you are a real scholar. The
    fantasy is your belief that you are a complete, intact and mature
    adult.

    I pity, you son.
     
    Abbot, Oct 31, 2008
    #4

  5. And so a state, a corporation, is an artificial person when brought
    within the scope of the law (municipal law).

    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    U.S. v. Cooper Corporation 312 U.S. 600
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=312&page=600

    Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has
    capacity to sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its
    property rights.

    ....

    Since, in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the
    sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to
    exclude it. 5 But there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. The
    purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and
    the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction
    which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state
    or nation within the scope of the law.
    ----------


    Now the questions are... why can`t this juristic "person" (state) have
    a "bodily presence in any place"? Why is it that this "person" (state)
    can only act through agents? Why is this "person" (state) unable to
    have oral discourse and therefore can only command by laws?


    ----------
    US Supreme Court
    HELVERING v. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84 (1934)

    While it cannot be said that the United States, in its corporate
    capacity as an artificial person, has a bodily presence in any place,
    it is not unreasonable to hold that in the eye of the law it has a
    residence, and especially so when a contrary holding would defeat the
    evident purpose of a statute.
    ----------
    POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=114&page=270

    "The state is a political corporate body, can act only through agents,
    and can command only by laws."
    ----------


    Find the answers here folks!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008
    #5
  6. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot)  StaR, you can post all you want but it won’t change the fact
    Abbot) I guess I am going to have to repeat your argument for you yet,
    again, old son. The conclusion of your agrument is that government is
    a mere fantasy.

    You aren't any closer to that proof than you were 5 years ago, StaR.
     
    Abbot, Oct 31, 2008
    #6
  7. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) For the hundredth time I ask how a court you tell us is a
    nonexistent fantasy issue a decision you pass off as binding case law!
     
    Abbot, Oct 31, 2008
    #7
  8. Poor simpleton, unable to grasp the concept of what an actor is and
    what it is he does.

    Find the answers here folks!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008
    #8
  9. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    And so a state, a corporation, is an artificial person when brought
    Abbot 2) So what are you saying now? That actors in a fantasy play
    make binding case law? Or is the problem that you don't have a
    straightforward answer and hope that the wannabe detaxers you are
    trying to dupe will believe you have brilliant answer at your website
    which you are just too busy to reference.

    The plain fact is for years you have been telling us that "actors"
    aren't real either, StaR.

    So the real question is when are you going to start making sense?
     
    Abbot, Oct 31, 2008
    #9

  10. Well there you have it folks. Abbot the Retard is just a ranting old
    fool.

    From a post in 2006...


    Mar 1 2006, 11:17 am
    Newsgroups: can.taxes, us.taxes
    From: "StaR" <>
    Date: 1 Mar 2006 07:17:46 -0800
    Local: Wed, Mar 1 2006 11:17 am
    Subject: Re: The ffictitious nature of a "natural person" II

    http://groups.google.ca/group/can.t...nk=gst&q=governmental+actors#12f8157575c080df

    ----------
    Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
    and Northern Development) (C.A.)

    ....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
    of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
    constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
    of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

    ....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
    the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
    ----------

    Governmental ACTORS

    Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
    that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
    "part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
    fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
    ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
    concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
    thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
    "entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
    or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
    ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
    fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

    END QUOTE


    LMAO

    Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
    trying to hide from you!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Oct 31, 2008
    #10
  11. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) StaR, your answer has no relation to the question. You don't
    seem to realize that your posts and the case law you mangle shows us
    that the courts have real authority!

    You don't know what you are saying. The societal source of justice
    and jurisdiction is defined in your post and yet you say so such
    authority exists outside your idea of God.

    You are a mindless boob!
     
    Abbot, Nov 1, 2008
    #11
  12. Just pointing out to the readership what a lying sack of shit you
    were!!

    "The plain fact is for years you have been telling us that "actors"
    aren't real either, StaR."
    LMAO, the ONLY authority a court has (yet another corporate body) is
    over "persons", legal personalities found within the fictitious realm
    of a corporation.
    Abbot the Retard, I forgot how much fun it was having you around as
    the jester.

    Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
    trying to hide from you!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Nov 1, 2008
    #12
  13. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot 2) Again, you presume what you have not proven. As a fact of law
    and history the authority of government is real. You don't realize
    that you just citied case law that refutes your own argument!
     
    Abbot, Nov 1, 2008
    #13
  14. From a previous post....

    LMAO as clearly articulated below, a constitution is an "instrument by
    which the incorporation is made". It is a charter of INCORPORATION.

    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
    (1837)

    "Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
    governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
    grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
    purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
    objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
    are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
    the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

    "The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
    grant or charter of the separate states;"
    ----------

    And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
    showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

    ----------
    "Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
    (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
    Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
    that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
    understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
    corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
    the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
    They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
    Austin Rayder)
    ----------
    "they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
    construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
    incorporation is made."

    As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
    nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
    they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
    act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
    "ultra vires" (beyond the power).

    The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
    supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
    and the granting states (corporations).
    LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

    It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
    and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
    FICTION!!!

    ----------
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
    Edition

    cor-po-ra-tion

    1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
    entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
    from those of its members.

    2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
    corporate.
    ----------
    37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

    Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

    Tuesday, May 28, 2002

    Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

    " Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
    corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
    a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
    fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
    imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
    ----------
    Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

    "My Lords, a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own
    any more than it has a body of its own;..."
    ----------
    https://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/CASS/2004/klineberg.htm

    AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

    C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

    PROBLEM

    A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
    physical body and no "mind".
    ----------

    In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
    MIND. LMFAO
    From a post in 2006...

    Mar 1 2006, 11:17 am
    Newsgroups: can.taxes, us.taxes
    From: "StaR" <>
    Date: 1 Mar 2006 07:17:46 -0800
    Local: Wed, Mar 1 2006 11:17 am
    Subject: Re: The ffictitious nature of a "natural person" II

    http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/bf4e84a2...

    ----------
    Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
    and Northern Development) (C.A.)

    ....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
    of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
    constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
    of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

    ....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
    the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
    ----------

    Governmental ACTORS

    Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
    that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
    "part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
    fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
    ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
    concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
    thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
    "entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
    or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
    ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
    fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

    END QUOTE

    The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
    concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
    which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
    who administer its affairs.

    ----------
    JOSEPH K. ANGELL & SAMUAL AMES, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIVATE
    CORPORATIONS AGGREGATE 10-11 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 5th ed.
    1855)

    "Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
    are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
    resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
    understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
    obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
    be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
    can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
    affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
    singly. So the
    king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
    ----------
    The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
    that is FICTION!!!
    Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
    are you old fool.

    LMAO

    Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
    trying to hide from you!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Nov 1, 2008
    #14
  15. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot 2) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
    defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
    what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
    wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
    for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

    After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
    court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
    eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
    “actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

    So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

    Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
    argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
    plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
    and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
    authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

    Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
    making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
    officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
    roles”.

    Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
    describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
    officers!

    You are a hopeless case, boy.

    My suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic course
    at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get it paid
    for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts before you
    put them on this NG or your website.
     
    Abbot, Nov 1, 2008
    #15
  16. From a previous post....

    LMAO as clearly articulated below, a constitution is an "instrument by
    which the incorporation is made". It is a charter of INCORPORATION.

    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
    (1837)

    "Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
    governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
    grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
    purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
    objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
    are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
    the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

    "The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
    grant or charter of the separate states;"
    ----------

    And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
    showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

    ----------
    "Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
    (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
    Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
    that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
    understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
    corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
    the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
    They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
    Austin Rayder)
    ----------
    "they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
    construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
    incorporation is made."

    As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
    nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
    they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
    act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
    "ultra vires" (beyond the power).

    The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
    supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
    and the granting states (corporations).
    LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

    It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
    and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
    FICTION!!!

    ----------
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
    Edition

    cor-po-ra-tion

    1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
    entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
    from those of its members.

    2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
    corporate.
    ----------
    37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

    Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

    Tuesday, May 28, 2002

    Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

    " Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
    corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
    a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
    fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
    imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
    ----------
    Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

    "My Lords, a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own
    any more than it has a body of its own;..."
    ----------
    https://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/CASS/2004/klineberg.htm

    AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

    C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

    PROBLEM

    A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
    physical body and no "mind".
    ----------

    In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
    MIND. LMFAO
    From a post in 2006...

    Mar 1 2006, 11:17 am
    Newsgroups: can.taxes, us.taxes
    From: "StaR" <>
    Date: 1 Mar 2006 07:17:46 -0800
    Local: Wed, Mar 1 2006 11:17 am
    Subject: Re: The ffictitious nature of a "natural person" II

    http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/bf4e84a2...

    ----------
    Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
    and Northern Development) (C.A.)

    ....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
    of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
    constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
    of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

    ....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
    the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
    ----------

    Governmental ACTORS

    Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
    that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
    "part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
    fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
    ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
    concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
    thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
    "entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
    or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
    ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
    fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

    END QUOTE

    The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
    concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
    which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
    who administer its affairs.

    ----------
    JOSEPH K. ANGELL & SAMUAL AMES, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIVATE
    CORPORATIONS AGGREGATE 10-11 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 5th ed.
    1855)

    "Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
    are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
    resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
    understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
    obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
    be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
    can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
    affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
    singly. So the
    king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
    ----------
    The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
    that is FICTION!!!
    Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
    are you old fool.

    LMAO

    Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
    trying to hide from you!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Nov 1, 2008
    #16
  17. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
    defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
    what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
    wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
    for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

    After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
    court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
    eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
    “actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

    So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

    Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
    argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
    plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
    and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
    authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

    Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
    making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
    officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
    roles”.

    Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
    describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
    officers!

    Now trapped with nowhere to go in your argument you do what you do
    best hurl insults and post reams of disconnected case law
    quotes. . .all of which you say couldn’t be real in the first place.

    You are a hopeless case, boy.

    Again, my suggestion to you, StaR, is that you enroll in a basic logic
    course at the local community college (you’re on welfare, you can get
    it paid for, eh?) and then have a competent adult read your posts
    before you put them on this NG or your website.
     
    Abbot, Nov 1, 2008
    #17
  18. From a previous post....

    LMAO as clearly articulated below, a constitution is an "instrument by
    which the incorporation is made". It is a charter of INCORPORATION.

    ----------
    U.S. Supreme Court
    PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
    (1837)

    "Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
    governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
    grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
    purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
    objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
    are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
    the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

    "The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
    grant or charter of the separate states;"
    ----------

    And of course you denied that a corporation of ANY SORT was made
    showing the readers just what a clueless IDIOT you are.

    ----------
    "Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
    (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
    Quantrell (aka Abbot aka Austin Rayder)

    "The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
    that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
    understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
    corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot)

    "One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
    the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
    They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
    Austin Rayder)
    ----------
    "they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the
    construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the
    incorporation is made."

    As stated earlier, constitutions are charters of corporate powers,
    nothing more, nothing less. It tells them what they can do and what
    they can't do, nothing more, nothing less.They are not permitted to
    act outside the terms of their constitution - such acts are deemed
    "ultra vires" (beyond the power).

    The "instrument by which the incorporation is made" (constitution) is
    supreme law for the corporate entities ONLY, the federal corporation
    and the granting states (corporations).
    LMAO you are such an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

    It is the "separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges,
    and liabilities distinct from those of its members" that is PURE
    FICTION!!!

    ----------
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
    Edition

    cor-po-ra-tion

    1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
    entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
    from those of its members.

    2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
    corporate.
    ----------
    37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

    Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

    Tuesday, May 28, 2002

    Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

    " Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
    corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
    a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
    fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
    imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
    ----------
    Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

    "My Lords, a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own
    any more than it has a body of its own;..."
    ----------
    https://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SystemSafety/CASS/2004/klineberg.htm

    AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

    C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

    PROBLEM

    A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
    physical body and no "mind".
    ----------

    In fact a corporation shares a common trait with you...IT HAS NO
    MIND. LMFAO
    From a post in 2006...

    Mar 1 2006, 11:17 am
    Newsgroups: can.taxes, us.taxes
    From: "StaR" <>
    Date: 1 Mar 2006 07:17:46 -0800
    Local: Wed, Mar 1 2006 11:17 am
    Subject: Re: The ffictitious nature of a "natural person" II

    http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/bf4e84a2...

    ----------
    Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs
    and Northern Development) (C.A.)

    ....The starting point for any discussion of the legal responsibility
    of governmental actors is (or, at least was, until 1982) the
    constitutional premise that the Sovereign is the source and fountain
    of justice and that all jurisdiction is derived from her.

    ....All executive acts are done in her name or are done by Ministers of
    the Crown acting under statutory powers conferred upon them.
    ----------

    Governmental ACTORS

    Readers, the men and women who are ACTING are real enough. The words
    that they type or write (that I use) are real enough. The "role" or
    "part" that they ACT OUT such as a "minister" or "judge" however are
    fictitious, just ask any actor. The concept of an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL
    ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or "entity" that they endorse is... well a
    concept. It is PURE fiction as you and I know that there's no such
    thing as an INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being" or
    "entity". In fact, this INVISIBLE IMMORTAL ARTIFICIAL FORMLESS "being"
    or "entity" can ONLY "act" and be "seen" through the ACTS of the
    ACTORS who administer its affairs. Now if that doesn't show you the
    fictitious nature of the ENTITY then I don't know what will.

    END QUOTE

    The ACTORS and the PROPS (constitution - piece of paper outlining a
    concept) they use are real but the corporate entity is pure FICTION
    which is why IT can ONLY act and be seen in the ACTS of those (actors)
    who administer its affairs.

    ----------
    JOSEPH K. ANGELL & SAMUAL AMES, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIVATE
    CORPORATIONS AGGREGATE 10-11 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 5th ed.
    1855)

    "Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
    are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
    resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
    understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
    obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
    be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
    can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
    affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
    singly. So the
    king of England is a corporation; and so is parliament."
    ----------
    The document is real idiot, it is the corporate entity that it creates
    that is FICTION!!!
    Bwahahahahahaha and you just showed everyone what a complete IDIOT you
    are you old fool.

    LMAO

    Come see what this lying piece of shit is soooooooooooooo desperately
    trying to hide from you!!!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Nov 1, 2008
    #18

  19. Readers!!! lmao What can I say, he makes a great jester.

    A "court" is also a FICTION better known as an 'incorporeal political
    being' AKA a corporation. And like any corporate entity, required for
    its existence are actors, and in this case, actors that will play the
    part of "judge" and "clerk" and so on. These characters of course are
    all part and parcel to the FICTION called an "incorporeal political
    being" (court). The performance of these actors are mandated within a
    public ACT and are "indicative of a design to perform the functions of
    a court" that is, they are acting on behalf of the "incorporeal
    political being".

    ----------
    A LAW DICTIONARY

    ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

    by John Bouvier

    JUDGE. A public officer, lawfully appointed to decide litigated
    questions according to law. This, in its most extensive sense,
    includes all officers who are appointed to decide such questions, and
    not only judges properly so called, but also justices of the peace,
    and jurors, who are judges of the facts in issue. See 4 Dall. 229; 3
    Yeates, IR. 300. In a more limited sense, the term judge signifies an
    officer who is so named in his commission, and who presides in some
    court.

    COURT, practice. A court is an incorporeal political being, which
    requires for its existence, the presence of the judges, or a competent
    number of them, and a clerk or prothonotary, at the time during which,
    and at the place where it is by law authorized to be held; and the
    performance of some public act, indicative of a design to perform the
    functions of a court.
    ----------


    Come see what this shill is trying to hide from you!!

    The Lex Quadruplator
    www.lexquadruplator.com

    The Corporate Lie
     
    Lex Quadruplator, Nov 1, 2008
    #19
  20. Lex Quadruplator

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) I see you altered my post so as to esape the question, you tiny
    little man.

    Let's see it all again:

    Abbot ) StaR, your disjointed posts are contradictory and self
    defeating. You seem unable to make inferences in your argument. . .
    what a layman would call “connecting the dots“. Hence your argument
    wanders aimlessly around the NG. It is no wonder that you apologize
    for your “choppy writing style” at your website.

    After being asked several times how it can be that a non existent
    court can make binding case law for you to use in your argument you
    eventually realize your contradiction and start babbling about
    “actors” in the court who you unwittingly say aren’t real either.

    So you are in the same hole you were to start with.

    Then in a stunning bit of mindless posting you destroy your own
    argument by posting Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada which
    plainly describes the very real “source and fountain of justice
    and. . .jurisdiction” in Canada and when read in full explains the
    authority given judges, court officers and government officials.

    Realizing you have backed yourself in a corner yet again you start
    making up law and in a panic shout in all caps that these court
    officers and government officials are actors playing out “formless
    roles”.

    Mind you, this is shouted just after having quoted the case law that
    describes the real and tangible jurisdiction of the courts and its
    officers!

    Now trapped with nowhere to go in your argument you do what you do
    best hurl insults and post reams of disconnected case law
    quotes. . .all of which you say couldn’t be real in the first place.
    Abbot) So the question remains: How can a court be unreal and yet
    provide binding case law for you to quote?

    Substance, please.
     
    Abbot, Nov 1, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.