In
You're the one who bases your assertion that corporations are
fictional because they are not tangible.
Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
According to the expert testimony of Patrick Healy, professor of law
at McGill University, a CORPORATION by DEFINITION is a FICTION which
can be referred, without impropriety, to a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
Well, neither cults nor
corporations are separate from the people who comprise them, are
they? Neither one of them are separate individuals, are they?
WRONG.
The main characteristic of a corporation and the basis behind "limited
liability" is that a corporation denotes an "entity" that is said to
have a "separate existence" from that of its members, an "entity" said
to having "its own rights, privileges, and liabilities". A "cult" does
not denote such an "entity" in law.
----------
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.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
----------
Those are *your* standards for what is real, and what is fictional.
It is quite obvious now that you have no clue to what a corporation is
and what it denotes in law. It's either that or you are purposely
trying to deceive the readership.
One last time BOZO. Incorporation creates an "entity" that is said to
have a "separate existence" from that of its members, an "entity" said
to having "its own rights, privileges, and liabilities". It is this
ENTITY said to have a SEPARATE "existence" that is in question.
And of this "entity", according to the expert testimony of Patrick
Healy, professor of law at McGill University, a CORPORATION by
DEFINITION is a FICTION which can be referred, without impropriety, to
a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
And of course, it is the notion of a SEPARATE EXISTENCE that is
FICTION...MAKE-BELIEVE...STORY TELLING AT ITS VERY BEST.
----------
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".
----------
Now stop deleting these references in your responses which clearly
show the readership that you are nothing but an ignoramus.
There it is again. Only individual people are real. The
associations they form are matters of the intellect, and therefore,
according to you, ficticious.
LMAO NO, it is not just according to me!!! In fact, it is according to
the expert testimony of Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill
University, that a CORPORATION by DEFINITION is a FICTION which can be
referred, without impropriety, to a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. The only way
the readers might believe that it's only according to me is the fact
that you keep deleting my references in your responses like the
deceiving little parasite that you are.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
NO. A "cult" does not represent a SEPARATE ENTITY from that of its
members. (Unless of course they were INCORPORATED)
Notwithstanding that real fact that the above is a flawed leap of
logic,
LMAO, you're the one with the flawed leap of logic not being able to
understand the difference between a cult and a corporation. Not being
able to understand that incorporation creates an "entity" that is said
to have a "separate existence" from that of its members, an "entity"
said to having "its own rights, privileges, and liabilities". It is
this ENTITY said to have a SEPARATE "existence" that is in question. A
"cult" does not create such an entity unless they are INCORPORATED.
*if* it were true, it would also be true of "cults".
A "cult" does not represent a SEPARATE ENTITY from that of its
members. (Unless of course they were INCORPORATED) It is simply a
group of people.
Are you
starting to see what I mean by "your standards" yet?
All I see is an ignoramus that can't understand that the act of
incorporation CREATES an "entity" separate from that of its members
and that it is this entity that is in question.
----------
Mottershead v. Burdwood Bay Settlement Company Ltd. , 1991 CanLII 2284
(BC S.C.)
"I do not agree with Mr. Davies' position. There is a fundamental flaw
in the argument that the interests of the Company and the majority
shareholders are one and the same; it fails to recognize the
independent legal existence of the Company as an entity separate from
its shareholders and it precludes the possibility of any future
independent decision by the Directors."
----------
Viva Developments inc. v. Icarus Properties ltd., 1999 CanLII 5933 (BC
S.C.)
"The separate legal existence of a corporation from its shareholders,
officers and directors is ingrained firmly in the law and is essential
to commercial enterprise."
----------
Moja Group (Canada) Inc. v. Pink, 2004 CanLII 43909 (ON S.C.)
"The rule respects a basic principle of corporate law: a corporation
has a legal existence separate from that of its shareholders."
----------
Strata Plan LMS 1965 (Owners) v. 450526 B.C. Ltd., 2002 BCSC 155
(CanLII)
"It has long been established that a one person corporation, like any
validly set up corporation, has a separate legal existence and is an
independent person in law: Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22...
(H.L.). While the corporate veil can be lifted where the corporate
vehicle is used to perpetrate a fraud or to effect an unlawful
purpose, see for example Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne, [1933] Ch. 935...
(Eng. C.A.); Jones v. Lipman, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 832... (Ch. D.); Fern
Brand Waxes Limited v. Pearl (1972), 29 D.L.R. (3d) 662 (Ont. C.A.);
Lockharts Ltd. v. Excalibur Holdings Limited (1987), 47 R.P.R. 8
(N.S.T.D.), there is nothing improper in using a corporation as a
means of limiting liability or avoiding bearing business losses: B.G.
Preeco I (Pacific Coast) Ltd. v. Bon Street Holdings Ltd. (reflex-
logo) reflex, (1989), 43 B.L.R. 67 (B.C.C.A). No policy reasons have
been advanced to justify the creation of a special rule whereby
persons such as the defendant in this case would be prevented from
conducting their affairs in this fashion."
----------
MacPhail v. Tackama Forest Products Ltd., 1993 CanLII 263 (BC S.C.)
"As a general rule a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its
shareholders: Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [citation omitted]. The law on
when a court may disregard this principle by "lifting the corporate
veil" and regarding the company as a mere "agent" or "puppet" of its
controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent
principle. The best that can be said is that the "separate entities"
principle is not enforced when it would yield a result "too flagrantly
opposed to justice, convenience or the interests of the Revenue"...
----------
Mcclurg v. Canada, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1020, 1990 CanLII 28 (S.C.C.)
"The Common Law
Since the famous decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon
and Co., [1897] A.C. 22, it has been a settled proposition of law that
a corporation has a separate legal existence, independent from that of
its shareholders."
----------
Normart Management Ltd. v. West Hill redevelopment Co. Ltd., 1998
CanLII 2447 (ON C.A.)
To conclude otherwise would be to challenge the recognized separate
legal identity afforded to corporations under our law and to conclude
that every corporate action which may give rise to a breach, by virtue
of the decision making authority of the corporate management, is an
action of the directing minds personally.
----------
Are you
starting to get the idea that the "readers", if there are any,
Ah, but there are plenty of readers. I see a lot of my work here being
quoted all over the internet. I also see people landing on my site
just by doing a google search on certain terms.
will
not see that you're doing your argument more harm than good?
Look BOZO, a "cult" does not represent a SEPARATE ENTITY from that of
its members. (Unless of course they were INCORPORATED) It is simply a
group of people with certain beliefs. What people will and do see is
an ignoramus that is about as bright as a bag of rocks.
Ha ha ha...what an IDIOT!!!! A "cult" does not represent a SEPARATE
ENTITY from that of its members. (Unless of course they were
INCORPORATED). It is the SEPARATE ENTITY created by incorporation that
is in question.
----------
Mottershead v. Burdwood Bay Settlement Company Ltd. , 1991 CanLII 2284
(BC S.C.)
"I do not agree with Mr. Davies' position. There is a fundamental flaw
in the argument that the interests of the Company and the majority
shareholders are one and the same; it fails to recognize the
independent legal existence of the Company as an entity separate from
its shareholders and it precludes the possibility of any future
independent decision by the Directors."
----------
Viva Developments inc. v. Icarus Properties ltd., 1999 CanLII 5933 (BC
S.C.)
"The separate legal existence of a corporation from its shareholders,
officers and directors is ingrained firmly in the law and is essential
to commercial enterprise."
----------
Moja Group (Canada) Inc. v. Pink, 2004 CanLII 43909 (ON S.C.)
"The rule respects a basic principle of corporate law: a corporation
has a legal existence separate from that of its shareholders."
----------
Strata Plan LMS 1965 (Owners) v. 450526 B.C. Ltd., 2002 BCSC 155
(CanLII)
"It has long been established that a one person corporation, like any
validly set up corporation, has a separate legal existence and is an
independent person in law: Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22...
(H.L.). While the corporate veil can be lifted where the corporate
vehicle is used to perpetrate a fraud or to effect an unlawful
purpose, see for example Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne, [1933] Ch. 935...
(Eng. C.A.); Jones v. Lipman, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 832... (Ch. D.); Fern
Brand Waxes Limited v. Pearl (1972), 29 D.L.R. (3d) 662 (Ont. C.A.);
Lockharts Ltd. v. Excalibur Holdings Limited (1987), 47 R.P.R. 8
(N.S.T.D.), there is nothing improper in using a corporation as a
means of limiting liability or avoiding bearing business losses: B.G.
Preeco I (Pacific Coast) Ltd. v. Bon Street Holdings Ltd. (reflex-
logo) reflex, (1989), 43 B.L.R. 67 (B.C.C.A). No policy reasons have
been advanced to justify the creation of a special rule whereby
persons such as the defendant in this case would be prevented from
conducting their affairs in this fashion."
----------
MacPhail v. Tackama Forest Products Ltd., 1993 CanLII 263 (BC S.C.)
"As a general rule a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its
shareholders: Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [citation omitted]. The law on
when a court may disregard this principle by "lifting the corporate
veil" and regarding the company as a mere "agent" or "puppet" of its
controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent
principle. The best that can be said is that the "separate entities"
principle is not enforced when it would yield a result "too flagrantly
opposed to justice, convenience or the interests of the Revenue"...
----------
Mcclurg v. Canada, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1020, 1990 CanLII 28 (S.C.C.)
"The Common Law
Since the famous decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon
and Co., [1897] A.C. 22, it has been a settled proposition of law that
a corporation has a separate legal existence, independent from that of
its shareholders."
----------
Normart Management Ltd. v. West Hill redevelopment Co. Ltd., 1998
CanLII 2447 (ON C.A.)
To conclude otherwise would be to challenge the recognized separate
legal identity afforded to corporations under our law and to conclude
that every corporate action which may give rise to a breach, by virtue
of the decision making authority of the corporate management, is an
action of the directing minds personally.
----------
The last and most comfortable refuge of those with a failed argument
is the world of insults and attacks.
Sorry, that's from hanging around your mentor Abbot the Retard for too
long. But I still say that you're about as bright as a bag of rocks.
If the people who are a voluntary part of a society
And here's the intentional fraud instigated and maintained by the
legal industry on millions of unsuspecting victims right here folks!!!
"If the people who are a voluntary part of a society"
----------
The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, p.358
"Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer
suffrage or any other particular incident, but it does imply
incorporation into the body politic."
----------
A law Dictionary
by John Bouvier
TO ENFRANCHISE. To make free to incorporate a man in a society or body
politic. Cunn. L. D. h. t. Vide Disfranchise.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
ENFRAN'CHISEMENT, n. Release from slavery or custody.
1. The admission of persons to the freedom of a corporation or state;
investiture with the privileges of free citizens; the incorporating of
a person into any society or body politic.
----------
Readers???? Who "voluntarely" chooses to enter a "contract of
incorporation" incorporating themselves into a roman style corporation
where they are to become ACTORS on behalf of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY and
be subjected to the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons where
the ONLY rights to be had are those of a RANK you hold within this
corporation???
LMAO!! Certainly not the general public thanks to the legal industry
with its dolus malus, deceit, dishonesty and fraudulent inducement
hidden under the rule that the legal industry cannot relinquish or
reveal their course of dealing and usage of trade to the public at
large.
It is a FRAUD of great proportions for...
Very few people understand that a "state/government" is a corporation
to start with. Even you two BOZOS didn't know.
----------
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.""
----------
Very few people understand that these are roman style corporations and
that "All corporations were originally modeled upon a state or
nation".
----------
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone
Chap. 18: Of Corporations
---
THE honor of originally inventing these political constitutions
entirely belongs to the Romans. They were introduced, as Plutarch
says, by Numa; who finding, upon his accession, the city torn to
pieces by the two rival factions of Sabines, and Romans, thought it a
prudent and politic measure, to subdivide these two into many smaller
ones, by instituting separate societies of every manual trade and
profession. They were afterwards much considered by the civil law,1 in
which they were called universitates, as forming one whole out of many
individuals; or collegia, from being gathered together: they were
adopted also by the canon law, for the maintenance of ecclesiastical
discipline; and from them our spiritual corporations are derived. But
our laws have considerably refined and improved upon the invention,
according to the usual genius of the English nation: particularly with
regard to sole corporations, consisting of one person only, of which
the Roman lawyers had no notion; their maxim being that "tres faciunt
collegium."2 Though they held, that if a corporation, originally
consisting of three persons, be reduced to one, "si universitas ad
unum redit," it may still subsist as a corporation, "et stet nomen
universitatis."3
----------
M'Culloch v. Maryland, 1819
"The history of corporations will illustrate this position. They were
transplanted from the Roman law into the common law of England, and
all the municipal codes of modern Europe. From England, they were
derived to this country."
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)
.....
Even were I to accept the Court's premise that whether Territories are
"persons" for purposes of 1983 must be analyzed in light of the 1874
recodification of the Dictionary Act, I would reach the same
conclusion. Although the recodification eliminated the reference to
"body politic," this change did not exclude Territories from the scope
of 1983 because the recodification also provided that "the word
`person' may extend and be applied to partnerships and corporations,"
id., at 19 (emphasis added). At the time of the revision the term
"corporation" generally was thought to include political entities such
as a Territory. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 451 (1867)
(remarks of Rep. Bingham) (referring to the Territory of Nebraska as
"a corporation"). "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.'" Chisholm v. Georgia, 2
Dall. 419, 447 (1793) (Iredell, J.). 8 A Territory thus would [495
U.S. 182, 202] qualify as a "person" even under the 1874
recodification of the Dictionary Act.
[ Footnote 8 ] At common law, a "corporation" was an "artificial perso
[n] endowed with the legal capacity of perpetual succession"
consisting either of a single individual (termed a "corporation sole")
or of a collection of several individuals (a "corporation aggregate").
3 H. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England 166, 168 (1st Am.
ed. 1845). The sovereign was considered a corporation. See id., at
170; see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *467. Under the
definitions supplied by contemporary law dictionaries, Territories
would have been classified as "corporations" (and hence as "persons")
at the time that 1983 was enacted and the Dictionary Act recodified.
See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) ("All corporations
were originally modeled upon a state or nation"); 1 J. Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
of America 318-319 (11th ed. 1866) ("In this extensive sense the
United States may be termed a corporation"); Van Brocklin v.
Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154 (1886) ("`The United States is a . . .
great corporation . . . ordained and established by the American
people'") (quoting United [495 U.S. 182, 202] States v. Maurice, 26 F.
Cas. 1211, 1216 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.)); Cotton
v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851) (United States is "a
corporation"). See generally Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 561-562 (1819) (explaining history of term
"corporation").
----------
Very few people understand that a corporation denotes the CREATION of
a FICTITIOUS ENTITY said to have a separate existence from that of the
members that is, a separate entity in, and of, itself having a
distinct existence apart from its membership, having its own rights,
its own privileges, and its own liabilities.
----------
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.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
----------
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
"a corporation is an abstraction. -It has no mind of its own any more
than it has a body of its own;..."
----------
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".
----------
Michigan Law Review, vol. 79 (January 1981), p. 386
"Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has
no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?"
----------
The Case of Sutton's Hospital, Coke Report 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 937
(Exchequer Chamber, 1613)
"They [corporations] cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed nor
excommunicate, for they have no souls."
----------
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.
----------
Very few people understand that they will become ACTORS on behalf of
this FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
----------
The Cataloger's Reference Shelf
Corporate body:
An organization or group of persons that is identified by a particular
name and that acts, or may act, as an entity. Typical examples of
corporate bodies are associations, institutions, business firms,
nonprofit enterprises, governments, government agencies, religious
bodies, local churches, and conferences.
----------
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
SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual
consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some
common purpose.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or
unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q. v.) a nation,
(q. v.) or a body politic. (q. v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.
----------
Very few people understand that the ONLY rights they have are those
associated to a RANK held within this roman style CORPORATION. The
most obvious ones being the rights and obligations of a "minor"
compared to those of a "major(ity)"
----------
Institutes of American Law, Volume I, BOOK I, - OF PERSONS, by John
Bouvier. 1854.
"136. Persons are divided into natural and artificial These will be
considered separately.
TITLE I-OF NATURAL PERSONS. CHAPTER I-WHO IS A PERSON.
137. Men, women and children, who are called natural persons: but in
another sense, a person is meant the part which a man plays in
society. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. (a)
Any human being is a man, (b) whether he be a member of society or
not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age,
sex, etc. A person is 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."
----------
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
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are
called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly
synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of
society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be
his age, sex, &c. A person is 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. n. 137.
----------
The Canadian Law Dictionary
Minor
A person who is legally underage. It varies between 21 and 18 years of
age. Each state sets an age threshold at which time a person is
invested with all legal rights as an adult. For many new adults, this
may mean access to places serving alcohol and the right to purchase
and consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and drive a car. But there are
many other legal rights which a minor does not have such as, in some
states, the right to own land, to sign a contract or to get married.
----------
A Law Dictionary
by John Bouvier
MINOR, persons. One under the age of twenty-one years, while in a
state of infancy; one who has not attained the age of a major. The
terms major and minor, are more particularly used in the civil law.
The common law terms are adult and infant. See Infant.
----------
agree that a
corporation will be treated, in some respects, as a separate entity,
And of this "entity", according to the expert testimony of Patrick
Healy, professor of law at McGill University, a CORPORATION by
DEFINITION is a FICTION which can be referred, without impropriety, to
a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
and the effects of that agreement
What AGREEMENT??? Thanks to the legal industry and IDIOTS like you,
the general public has NO CLUE to what they are getting themselves
into.
The "effects" are a FRAUD perpetrated against innocent VICTIMS.
then whether or
not the entity (e.g., a cult, government, corporation, etc..) is an
invention of the mind is irrelevant to the very real impact the
recognition of that entity has on real life.
Right. A legal system that has brought us fascist governments, police
states, private banking cartels, lost of unalienable rights, unending
taxation, discontent, degradation and unending wars, a legal system
that has served tyrants since its inception and continues to do so
today.
What's also plain English is that it's not the government or the
corporation or the cult that has any impact on real life, but
rather, the effects of the real decisions by real people to make
real decisions to treat those entities as though they were real that
matters.
Right. A legal system that has brought us fascist governments, police
states, private banking cartels, lost of unalienable rights, unending
taxation, discontent, degradation and unending wars, a legal system
that has served tyrants since its inception and continues to do so
today.
One VERY significant fact.
People become ACTORS acting out a FICTION.
If I, and all of the people who are also part of
the society to which I and they voluntarily belong
Nobody "voluntarely" chooses to enter the "contract of incorporation"
incorporating themselves into a roman style corporation where they are
to become ACTORS on behalf of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY and be subjected to
the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons where the ONLY rights
to be had are those of a RANK you hold within this corporation. It is
foisted on people through the mandatory "legal identity" system.
The only thing you "wish" is to foist this FRAUD on unsuspecting
VICTIMS.
to treat certain entities in some ways similarly to the way
we treat individuals, then the impact of that agreement is what it
is. That is our right, and we've exercised it.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to exercise this FRAUD on unsuspecting VICTIMS.
Expose the true nature of these CORPORATIONS and see how quick your so-
called "right" disappears.
Why are you arguing what everyone else seems to already know?
Bwahahahahaha very few people understand that a "state/government", a
FICTITIOUS ENTITY, has NO AUTHORITY over a REAL MAN. But thank you for
acknowledging that FACT. Man, I tell ya, it was like pulling teeth!!!
I do feel sorry for you though as your mentor will not be very happy
with this your revelation.
Of
course an entity has no authority of its own, especially in a
society from which people are free to withdraw.
IS THAT RIGHT!!!!!!!
Please do explain to us how people can "withdraw" from the "contract
of incorporation" incorporating themselves into a roman style
corporation where they are to become ACTORS on behalf of a FICTITIOUS
ENTITY and be subjected to the dictatorial enslaving roman law of
persons where the ONLY rights to be had are those of a RANK you hold
within this corporation.
All that exists is
the fact that when people agree to participate in a society the
terms and conditions of which they are fully aware will apply to
them as a result of their voluntary participation, then they
therefore agree to abide by those terms and conditions.
Therein lies the FRAUD. People are NOT fully "aware" of the "terms"
and "conditions" of the "contract of incorporation" incorporating
themselves into a roman style corporation where they are to become
ACTORS on behalf of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY and be subjected to the
dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons where the ONLY rights to be
had are those of a RANK you hold within this corporation.
The fact
that other people will hold them to their commitments in exact
accordance with those terms and conditions has nothng to do with
authority, much less that of an entity which is an invention of the
mind.
Their "commitments"??? You mean, the LIABILITY to PERFORM according to
their "persons" as is mandated by the dictatorial enslaving ROMAN law
of "persons" that is, the "dictates" of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY, the
MUNICIPAL LAW of a CORPORATION. These people have no idea of the true
nature of their "commitments". It is a FRAUD of great proportions
perpetrated by the legal industry on behalf of a "den of vipers".
They only exist as inventions of the mind. Can you touch a right?
Can you touch love? Can you touch right? Of course not. You can
only touch the effects of those inventions,and so those effects are
very real. The same is true of a corporation. You can't touch a
corporation, but its effects are no less real.
And if people understood the "source" of those "effects" that being
the LIABILITY to PERFORM according to their "persons" as is mandated
by the dictatorial enslaving ROMAN law of "persons" that is, the
"dictates" of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY, the MUNICIPAL LAW of a CORPORATION,
that "source" being the "terms" and "conditions" of the "contract of
incorporation" incorporating themselves into a roman style corporation
where they are to become ACTORS on behalf of a FICTITIOUS ENTITY and
again, be subjected to the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons
where the ONLY rights to be had are those of a RANK held within this
corporation, LOL, I suspect people would tell you to go to hell right
pronto.
You just answered your own question when you said that love and
rights and right are all real. Can you touch any of them?
It is not a question of being able to touch but rather "do they
exist?". To be more SPECIFIC, the QUESTION is... does the ENTITY
created by the act of incorporation, said to have a separate existence
from that of the members that is, a separate entity in, and of, itself
having a distinct existence apart from its membership, having its own
rights, its own privileges, and its own liabilities... REAL or FICTION
that is, does the "entity" ACTUALLY EXIST??? LOL the ANSWER is NO.
"It" does NOT really EXIST. It is by DEFINITION a FICTION... a
FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
You seems to understand *some* English, but you don't seem to much
much a grasp of logic.
You're so messed up that you can't tell between something is real or
fiction.
----------
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
---
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"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?
----------
As you just proved, just because something
is an invention of the mind doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It
just means that you can't touch it. To very small minded people,
anythng they can't touch isn't real.
Yours is nothing but a PATHETIC attempt by a very small minded idiot
to redefine the word "real". In one breath you admit that's its
"imaginary" then turn around and argue that's it's "real". Go back to
school idiot and learn the English language.
----------
Webster Dictionary
real
1.Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as, a
description of real life.
3. Relating to things, not to persons.
----------
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
real
- adjective 1 actually existing or occurring in fact; not imagined or
supposed. 2 significant; serious. 3 not artificial; genuine. 4 rightly
so called; proper: a real man.
----------
And that doesn't make the effects of such entites any less real.
The "effects" of the FRAUD are real enough, I will not argue with you
there.
Of course people have to act on its behalf. Are you under the
impression that anyone thinks otherwise? Is what everyone already
knows coming as a huge revelation just to you? lol! Yes, people
invented the concept of associations, and cults, and congregations,
and governments and corporations all as a way to organize and
conduct their affairs. And all of which people know that
ultimately, they must act on its behalf. And so that's what they
do.
BRAVO!!! Abbot the Retard, are you paying attention you old fool???
LMFAO
My we've come a long way!!
Now let's see what we've been able to establish so far...
All states/governments are corporations which are FICTITIOUS ENTITIES.
These FICTITIOUS ENTITIES do not have authority over a real man.
People are ACTING as if they were the FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
This is great, but it sure took a long time. Now that we've come this
far however, we can as Abbot the Retard says "move forward".
At best, you've got an argument that people have become sloppy with
their use of words so that they're not saying what they really mean.
Is that your whole point?
Sloppy use of words??? No my friend, it is outright LIES by the legal
industry to hide the fact that the legal industry is maintaining
corporate taxslave plantations ruled and regulated by the dictatorial
enslaving roman law of persons all financed by a den of vipers. Where
a man is unlawfully "incorporated" into roman style corporate entities
and the only rights to be had are those associated to a rank held.
Unknowingly accepting the "legal identity" as his own, he is held
liable for the performance of his "person" as is dictated by the
dictatorial roman law; the commands of a fictitious entity- a person
shall, a person shall not. Out the window are his unalienable rights
and his sovereignty in exchange for an unjust system of fraud and
oppression. A legal system that has brought us fascist governments,
police states, private banking cartels, lost of unalienable rights,
discontent, degradation and unending wars, a legal system that has
served tyrants since its inception and continues to do so today.
"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
As one example, anyone who has agreed to belong to a congregation
has. It's called cooperation, collaboration, and association. It's
called society. If people cannot belong to a fictitious entity,
then how can they belong to a cult?
A cult does not denote a separate entity unless of course it was
incorporated. It is the separate entity created by the act of
incorporation that is subject at hand, AN ENTITY THAT HAS A SEPARATE
EXISTENCE FROM THAT OF THE MEMBERS. Again, we're NOT talking about the
MEMBERS.
Suing someone is just an invention of the mind as well, so it really
didn't do anything real either. But the effects of all of this
fiction are no less real.
Let's look at that in greater detail shall we... the "act" of "suing"
a "person".
I want to start with a question.
----------
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of
the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs
every thing; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert;
is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of
her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage
is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of an union of person in
husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and
disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.
----------
When Blackstone speaking on the doctrine of coverture says that in
law, "the husband and wife are one person"... was he talking about
"artificial persons" or "natural persons"?
I await your answer my friend.
The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org
So anyone that disagrees with you on an opinion of your's that