The Corporate Lie

In

So anyone that disagrees with you on an opinion of your's that
can't withstand the simplest of questions is a dupe, and therefore,
the questions aren't worth answering, right? Do you not realize
that by conceding the weakness of your position so quickly, your
posts are having the exact opposite effect that you want?

I deny no such thing.

Nor did I, so why are you making any references it in your response
to me? Do you really need a straw man that badly?

 

My opinion??? Bwahahahaha You really are a dupe!!!

Corporations are fictions by definition and that's a FACT JACK, not
merely my opinion.

----------
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".
----------
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;..."
----------
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."
----------

Hey BOZO!!! You're the one trying to make the argument that
corporations aren't fictions which has clearly been demonstrated to be
FALSE. LMAO!!

And trust me my dear jester, it is because of idiots such as yourself
that the truth is able to come out which is why I use you as such.
Indeed your rant doesn't stand up to the references presented. Do you
not realize that your rant is being exposed for what it is...PURE
BULLSHIT??? LMFAO

So you admit that a state/government is a corporate entity. Have you
told your mentor Abbot the Retard that he is full of shit and a
liar???

Are you finally admitting that a corporation is a FICTION?

Nah, like I said, I use you for the jester you truly are.


"A corporation is a fiction, by definition.." - Professor Patrick
Healy, professor of law at McGill University


Readers!!!! Come see what these two ranting fools are trying to hide
from you!!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Readers!!! Make no mistake my friends, corporations are

Abbot 2) Maybe in the detax culture a non-substantive response with a
few insults is considered brilliant, but in the real world it is
considered merely a non-substantive response with a few insults.

You are unable to defend your use of the logical fallacy of the
undistributed middle. You have no response to the observation that
there is no court decision which supports your conclusion and that it
is merely your poor logic and incorrect deduction that brings you to
your unproven conclusion. Here's the post you took the trouble to
erase: http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/5f299113271466f2?hl=en

So trapped you merely repeat the use of your logical fallacy by trying
to tell us that a corporation is the same thing as deceptive lie
because both inventions of man’s mind.

By your logic one may posit that you are the same as a pile of horse
shit because you and the shit are both carbon based. Of course, I
would never say that.

Your stupidity is just that easily revealed, StaR. I’ve been busting
you on this point for years and you still don’t get it. It’s no wonder
you are spending your days hiding in your basement working on your
hopelessly convoluted web site! You can barely function in the real
world!

But you can save it all by finding one court decision that
specifically states that government is non-existent and without real
authority. Then you should show us the language of the ruling that
says such and posting a link to the entire decision. . .so we can
check to see if you are altering the court’s words.

I suspect you will merely feign superiority and post another cut and
paste job from your catalog of canned responses.

BTW you are misapplying Chisholm again. See your outing on this point
from years ago. http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/3a0593c220fdfe80?hl=en

 

In

I don't suppose you're capable of an intellectually honest
discussion about this issue, are you.

Do name calling and insults work for you in RL? Anyway, are rights
ficticuous? Is love ficticious?

I think not. Trust is earned, and you have not earned mine.

I admit that it's not tangible, but that makes it no more fictitious
than a right, or ownership, or any other intangible concept.

 

To a criminally insane lying fascist pig such as yourself perhaps.

LMFAO There's just no end to the Retard's fallacies!!!


Let's see...


All corporations are fictions.
The government is a corporation.
Therefore the government is a fiction.


The middle term is the class of corporations and the first use clearly
refers to "all corporations". It is therefore distributed across the
whole of its class, and so can be used to connect the other two terms
(fiction, and governments). Note below that "corporation" is
distributed...

A government/state is a corporation and therefore is a fiction.


There is NO "logical fallacy of the undistributed middle".

Just one more lie by Abbot the Retard!!!

LMAO

Let's see... we have the US Supreme Court admitting that a state
(corporate entity) is unable to have a "bodily presence" in any place
and the Supreme Court of Canada admitting that a state was an
"amorphous entity".

----------
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.
----------
Supreme Court of Canada
stoffman v. vancouver general hospital

"In short, McIntyre J. was of the view that the references in s. 32(1)
to the "government of Canada" and the "government of each province"
could not be interpreted as bringing within the ambit of the Charter
the whole of that amorphous entity which in contemporary political
theory might be thought of as "the state". Instead, they were to be
interpreted as references to what has traditionally been thought of as
the institutions of government -- those bodies and offices upon which
the Constitution confers power to make and enforce laws generally
applicable across the body politic."
----------


And of course each of these are consistent with the rest of the
references presented to wit...


----------
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".
----------
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;..."
----------
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."
----------

I erased your post??? LMAO

I said no such thing jester!!!

What I said was...

Readers, what we are talking about is FICTION, that is, that which is
INVENTED OR IMAGINED by the mere FICTION OF THE MIND.


----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

fiction

FIC'TION, n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.]

1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere
fiction of the mind.

2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a
fiction.

So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon,
taken from the serpent which tempted Eve.
----------


And what is the FICTION that we are talking about? What is INVENTED OR
IMAGINED by the mere FICTION OF THE MIND?


The "SEPARATE ENTITY" created by incorporation that is said to having
"its own rights, privileges, and liabilities" (a person).


----------
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.
----------


It is the "entity/being" created that is the FICTION. It is the
"entity/being" created that is INVENTED OR IMAGINED by the mere
FICTION OF THE MIND. There is NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE!! It's all MAKE-
BELIEVE, story telling at its very best. The "entity/being" DOES NOT
REALLY EXIST!!! lol

----------
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".
----------
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;..."
----------
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."
----------

Bah! I've been called worse!!! Besides, a pile of horse shit and
myself are REAL unlike the SEPARATE ENTITY created by incorporation
that is said to having "its own rights, privileges, and liabilities".
That entity retard is PURE FICTION as the entity does not really
exist. There is NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE.

----------
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".
----------

Boy, you really busted my ass this time didn't you!!! LMFAO

The only thing you proved was that you and corporations are very much
alike, you both have NO BRAIN.

----------
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.
----------

And while you're at it jester, you can explain to the good readership
why it is that a corporate "entity", a person no less, is unable to
have a "bodily presence" in any place.

I suspect that you will continue to rant like an old fool and will
again not provide a single iota of references to back that rant.

LMAO, It was I who had to correct you and explained that in CHISHOLM
v. STATE OF GA, one of the questions that was being asked was whether
a 'State' was or could be treated as a 'sub-corporation' in regards to
the 'United States/federal government'. The answer was no as the
'States' were in existence prior to the formation of the 'United
States/federal government' and therefore they could not possibly be
considered as being products of the 'United States/federal
government'.

Readers, Abbot the Retard is just sore at me for having exposed him
for the lying piece of shit that he is!!!

"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 the
Retard)


----------
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 corporation is a fiction, by definition.." - Professor Patrick
Healy, professor of law at McGill University


Readers!!!! Come see what these two ranting fools are trying to hide
from you!!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

In

Why are you so afraid to enter the realm of thoughts, and ideas, and
concepts? What scares you so much about your position that you
react with such vitriol? Is it because unless you can touch
something, it scares you? Is that why you need to brand everything
as ficticious just because you can't touch it? You can't touch
rights either. You can't touch love either. You can't touch
fairness either. Do those scare you as well, or is it only those
things which keep you from getting something for nothing that tend
to scare you?

 

Readers!!! Make no mistake my friends, corporations are

Abbot 3) My point exactly.In the detax culture a non-substantive
response with a few insults is considered brilliant, but in the real
world it is considered merely a non-substantive response with a few
insults.

Abbot 3) You try to get out of your corner by failing to state your
own argument, StaR. Anyone paying attention, knows that the concluding
statement of your argument is that governments aren’t “real”, and have
no authority because they are man’s creations.

You simply left out your argument's inference (that all things
fictional and fictitious are the same) and hoped that none of your
detax dupes would notice.

You don’t want to dwell on your real argument because doing so makes
it painfully clear that your logic is laughable. So instead of
getting to the point you play scholar as best you can and cut and
paste disjointed stuff you have collected over the years.

Now that you have to make sense you are lost.

Abbot 3) Readers will note that StaR was challenged to find a court
decision that says governments aren’t “real”, and have no authority
because they are man’s creations, not one that says the government
doesn't have a physical body!

He's done already!

Abbot 3) Readers will note that the court does not say that
governments aren’t “real”, and have no authority because they are
man’s creations. That incorrect deduction is StaR's!

Abbot 3) Readers will note that the court does not say that
governments aren’t “real”, and have no authority because they are
man’s creations. That incorrect deduction is StaR's!

Abbot 3) Readers will note that the court does not say that
governments aren’t “real”, and have no authority because they are
man’s creations. That incorrect deduction is StaR's!

Abbot 3) Who asked about souls, StaR? Readers, I think the poor boy
is done!

<snip>

 

Ummmm......they're all intangibles.

He can't touch his brain or heart.....so.....

A ficticious brain and a fictious heart.

Don't lose ol' Eldon on the technicalities.





--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

 

In the pro corporate taxslave plantation cult, outright lying to the
readership is considered brilliant, but in the real world it is
considered the ranting of a criminally insane lying fascist pig!!

"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 the
Retard)

The readers are well aware jester that my argument is based on the
fact that when we speak of a state/government, we are dealing with
corporate "entities" and are just as equally aware that you lied to
them over and over again about this fact by denying that they were
corporations of any sort.. all in a pathetic attempt to discredit my
argument.

----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot the Retard)

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

"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 Retard)

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


It is without question my dear readers that we are talking about a
corporate "entity", a person with the capacity "to sue and be sued, to
convey and receive property".


----------
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.
----------



And of course, it is this "entity", a person that is said to have the
capacity "to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property" that is
in question.

Not quite jester but you're getting close.

Readers, the fact of the matter is that the "government" is a
corporate "entity", a person (having a separate existence) said to
have the capacity "to sue and be sued, to convey and receive
property". Again, it is this SEPARATE EXISTENCE, this corporate
"entity" that is in question. And as clearly demonstrated, that
separate existence is a fiction. That "entity" said to have the
capacity "to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property" does not
really exist.

----------
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?.."
----------
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".
----------


And of course, to further see the fictitious nature of a corporation
is the understanding that a corporation (aggregate) denotes the
personification (to give legal personality) of an "undertaking" while
a corporation sole denotes the personification of an "office" and
subsequently its "undertaking".


----------
Penney v. Lahey, 2002 NFCA 47 (CanLII)

[2] The most salient aspect of the corporation sole which needs to be
kept in mind in addressing this appeal is that it personifies the
office held by its successive individual office holders from time to
time, and the undertaking of that office. This aspect is succinctly
explained in the first edition of Professor L.C.B. Gower's text, The
Principles of Modern Company Law (1954) Stevens & Sons, London, where,
in distinguishing the natures of corporations aggregate and sole, he
stated at p. 62:

.... the idea behind the corporation sole is the same as that
underlying the corporation aggregate, the personification of the
undertaking as opposed to the natural persons operating it from time
to time. In the case of the corporation aggregate it is the
undertaking which is personified to distinguish it from its members;
in the case of the corporation sole it is the office (of bishop, vicar
or the like) which is personified to distinguish it from the
individual holder from time to time. It should be stressed, however,
that the distinction between the two kinds of corporation has no
necessary connection with the number of members; a company is a
corporation aggregate, not sole, even though it may be a one-man
company.

[3] As a perusal of it shows, this passage opens by effectively
adverting to the reality that the fiction of personage is engrafted
upon the undertakings of both corporate categories. This enables the
law to treat those artificial personages as separate and distinct from
the individuals from time to time operating them, or being otherwise
interested in their operation. It is through this fiction that the
assets of the individuals gain immunity from any obligation to respond
to the liabilities of those corporate entities, be they corporations
aggregate or sole. Professor Gower was explaining, therefore, a basic
tenet of corporate law in observing that the idea behind any body
corporate is its "personification of the undertaking" as distinct from
the assets of the "natural persons" operating the corporation, be they
individual shareholders or their nominees, or the holders from time to
time of the episcopal office which has corporate personality.

[4] Whilst recognizing that the undertakings are personalized in each
instance, Professor Gower then went on to identify a key distinction
between both types of corporation which is material to resolving the
liability issues at bar. Thus, the passage notes that in the case of
the corporation aggregate it is "the undertaking which is
personified", separating that undertaking from its members and their
personal assets. In the case of the corporation sole, however,
Professor Gower observed "it is the office ... which is personified",
which would obviously encompass its undertaking. In that instance,
then, it is the office with its assets which is personified,
separating it from the successive office holders and their personal
assets.
----------

So what is a government my friends? It is an UNDERTAKING that has been
personified, an UNDERTAKING turned into a PERSON with the handy little
tool called a CORPORATION.

Again readers, we are talking about an "entity" said to exist apart
from that of the members, an "entity" in, and of, itself having a
distinct existence apart from its membership, having its own rights,
its own privileges, and its own liabilities.


----------
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?.."
----------


Indeed the learned professor was making his remarks towards the
corporate "entity". An "entity" pertaining to a FICTION, an IMAGINARY
"entity", a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.



----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Fictional (Page: 556)

Fic"tion*al (?), a. Pertaining to, or characterized by, fiction;
fictitious; romantic.Fictional rather than historical." Latham.
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Fictitious (Page: 556)

Fic*ti"tious (?), a. [L. fictitius. See Fiction.] Feigned; imaginary;
not real; fabulous; counterfeit; false; not genuine; as, fictitious
fame.
----------

Well, at least we now see the first part of the real argument...
governments/states are corporations, FICTITIOUS ENTITIES.

Governments/states are corporations, FICTITIOUS ENTITIES. That's a
FACT JACK!!! LMAO

Bwahahahahahaha what a twit.

----------
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.
----------
Supreme Court of Canada
stoffman v. vancouver general hospital

"In short, McIntyre J. was of the view that the references in s. 32(1)
to the "government of Canada" and the "government of each province"
could not be interpreted as bringing within the ambit of the Charter
the whole of that amorphous entity which in contemporary political
theory might be thought of as "the state". Instead, they were to be
interpreted as references to what has traditionally been thought of as
the institutions of government -- those bodies and offices upon which
the Constitution confers power to make and enforce laws generally
applicable across the body politic."
----------

Here we have the courts admitting that we are dealing with amorphous
"entities", "entities" that don't have physical bodies, "entities"
that can't have a bodily presence in any place and yet our resident
jester would have you believe that they are referencing real entities
and not fictitious entities.

A corporation is a fiction. Get over it loser.

----------
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".
----------

LMFAO, that's EXACTLY what they are saying you BOZO. "It", the
corporate "entity", the corporate "being", an "entity" that is said to
having its own rights, its own privileges, and its own liabilities IS
UNABLE TO HAVE A BODILY PRESENCE in ANY PLACE. Why? LMAO, because they
are FICTITIOUS ENTITIES.

----------
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?.."
----------

The ONLY authority the FICTITIOUS ENTITY has is over "persons", "legal
personalities" within its FICTITIOUS REALM.

LOL!! The ONLY authority the AMORPHOUS ENTITY has is over "persons",
"legal personalities" within its FICTITIOUS REALM.

LOL!! The ONLY authority the ABSTRACTION has is over "persons", "legal
personalities" within its FICTITIOUS REALM.

Readers, now that the jester has been reduced to a complete idiot,
come see how these FICTITIOUS ENTITIES are used against real human
beings!!!! It's all explained in great detail.

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Eldon "the kook" Warman whined:

A fictious thing a cult is. Doesn't exist under your theory.

By you.

That you are. That you are.

 

Bwahahahahahaha, unable to counter Professor Patrick Healy, the pro
corporate taxslave plantation cult is tripping all over themselves.
Can't even get the author of these posts right!! LMAO

----------
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublica...?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1

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?.."
----------


Yes indeed my friends, come see what this parasitic cult is trying to
hide from you!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

..

 

Our poor jester, Abbot the Retard, a shill posting out of the Kentucky
Department of Education, is doing his damnest at trying to hide the
intentional fraud instigated and maintained by the legal industry - a
legal system that has brought us fascist governments, police states,
private banking cartels, lost of rights, discontent, degradation and
unending wars, a legal system that has served tyrants since its
inception and continues to do so today. And as has been witnessed here
in these groups, this shill is indeed a criminally insane lying
fascist pig. One need only reference the "Willkill Incident" where the
deceiving parasite was caught LYING about receiving threats via email
and then FABRICATING more LIES by creating a new persona(WillKill) in
order to threaten himself with the solicitation of murder. This idiot
will stop at nothing to DECEIVE YOU. Yes indeed, your tax dollars hard
at work my friends.


As we have seen of late, the shill has been caught yet again LYING to
the readership for years with his insistence that a state/government
was not a corporation of any sort...dismissing any relevant references
to the contrary.


----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot the Retard)

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

"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 Retard)

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

"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 the
Retard)
----------



Again, we know this to be a complete LIE...



----------
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;"
----------



It is without question that a state/government is a corporation. This
has been well established. Now the question is, why would this shill
go through such greath lengths at trying to hide this fact?

Because the understanding of their fascist legal system is the
understanding of CORPORATIONS and their corporate structure. It is the
understanding that a "constitution" is simply a charter of
incorporation, the instrument by which the incorporation is made. It
is NOTHING more and NOTHING less. This in their FASCIST world they
call "The Law of the Land".

Yes indeed my friends, welcome to their corporate plantations ruled
and regulated by their dictatorial enslaving roman law of "persons".
Yes, I can hear the jester now but we'll just go ahead and let the
deceiving twit do his job.

And what is a corporation? A corporation is the CREATION of an
"entity" having a separate existence from that of the members, an
"entity" which is said to having its own rights, privileges, and
liabilities. The separate existence of this "entity" is the very basis
behind "limited liability" and the understanding that it is simply an
"undertaking" (government) that is "personified".



----------
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.
----------




And of course we know that this "separate legal entity" is a FICTION
that is, it is a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. There is NO separate existence, it
is merely an ABSTRACTION. The "entity" DOES NOT REALLY EXIST!!




----------
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".
----------
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;..."
----------
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."
----------



Now the question is well, how does this FICTITIOUS "entity" affect a
"real" flesh and blood human being??? In their fascist world, it is
done through a man's PERSON.

Consider the following...


----------
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

Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be "an artificial
being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of
law. Being the mere creature of law," continues the judge, "it
possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation
confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very
existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect
the object for which it was created. Among the most important are
immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality
properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are
considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They
enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property
without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless
necessityof perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it
from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of
men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that
corporations were invented, and are in use."
----------



Now this is KEY to everything folks...as stated above...in a
corporation...men are allowed to ACT as the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL that is,
men are allowed to act as if they were THE FICTITIOUS ENTITY. Again,
in this fascist LEGAL SYSTEM, men ACT as if they were the FICTITIOUS
entity that is, men are ACTING on behalf of a 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.
----------


And what is the significance of these ACTORS (men) acting out roles or
parts on behalf of the FICTITIOUS "entity"?? That's where a man's
PERSON comes in.


As seen below, in its original and natural sense, a "person" denotes a
mask or a character as in a role, a part assumed. It is without
question that the term "person" comes into the English language from
the Latin word persona, meaning the mask or fictional role played by
an actor.



----------
The Century Dictionary
http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html

person (per'son or per'sn), n. [( ME. Person, persun, persone,
persoun, Parson, a person or parson, ( OF. petsone, person, parson, F.
personne, person, = Sp. persona = Pg. pessoa = It. persona, a person,
character, = OFries. persona, perseuna, persina, person, parson, =
NID. persoon, D. persoon, person, character, -- MLG. persone, person,
character, parson, -- NIHG. persone, person, G. person, person, ----
Icel. persona, personi, person, parson, = Sw. Dan. person, person,
personage, character, < L. persona, a mask for actors, hence a
personage, character, or a part represented by an actor, a part which
one sustains in the world, a person or personage, ML. also a parson;
said to be derived, with lengthening of the radical vowel, <
personare, sound through, resound, make a sound on a musical
instrument, play, call out, etc., ( per, through, + sSaare, sound, <
sonus, sound: see so,ant, soundS. The orig. sense 'mask' is late in
E., and is a mere Latinism.]

1. A mask anciently worn by actors, covering the whole head, and
varying according to the character to be represented; hence, a mask or
disguise.

Certain it is that no man can long put on a person and act a part but
his evil manners will peep through the corners of the white robe. Jer.
Taylor, Apples of Sodom, iii.

2. The character represented by such a mask or by the player who wore
it; hence, character; role; the part which one assumes or sustains on
the stage or in life.

From his first appearance upon the stage, in his new person of a
sycophant or juggler, instead of his former person of a prince, he
[Perkin Warbeck] was exposed to the derision not only of the
courtiers, but also of the common people. Bacon, Hist. Hen. VII., p.
186.

I then did use the person of your father; The image of his power lay
in me. Shak., 2 Hen. IV., v. 2. 74.

I must take upon me the person of a philosopher, and make them a
present of my advice. Steele, Guardian, No. 141.
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Person (Page: 1070)

Per"son (?), n. [OE. persone, persoun, person, parson, OF. persone, F.
personne, L. persona a mask (used by actors), a personage, part, a
person, fr. personare to sound through; per + sonare to sound. See
Per-, and cf. Parson.]

1. A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation
of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or
dramatic representation; an assumed character. [Archaic]

His first appearance upon the stage in his new person of a sycophant
or juggler. Bacon.

No man can long put on a person and act a part. Jer. Taylor.

To bear rule, which was thy part And person, hadst thou known thyself
aright. Milton.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person
of a magistrate and that of a friend! South.
----------
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI

Person

The Latin word persona was originally used to denote the mask worn by
an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and,
finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual.
----------



And as seen from a quote from Charles Toullier in Bouvier's
Institutes, that same original and natural sense of the word "person"
is used in law.



----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word "Person", in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he
was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission
of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1

Bouvier's Institutes, note 1.
----------


In law, the word "person" in reference to a man denotes a state or a
part played which is consistent with its original and natural sense.


To be more precise, in law, the word "person" when applied to a man
denotes a rank held with its associated rights and duties as seen
below. Bouvier makes it very clear that a man's person is dependent on
a society of which we know is a corporation. Again, all part and
parcel to the FICTION called a CORPORATION and its corporate
structure.


----------
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.
----------




To further see the fictitious nature of a man's "person" (remember,
anything to do with the fiction (story) will involve further fictions)
is through the doctrine of coverture. Although the doctrine is for the
most part no longer used today, the mere fact that it was used at one
time or that some parts of it are still used today, demonstrates that
its legal foundation is/was a valid part of our systems and is proof
positive of the fictitious nature of a man's person.




...to be continued

OR

Come see it all explained in great detail

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org


and now a word from WillKill...LMAO

 

..

 

In

Cults are an invention of the mind, and therefore, by your
standards, are fictional.

But whether of not a government is a corporation is irrelevant.

So what?

So what?

No more fiction than rights, or right, or love, or law, any other
invention of the mind. What you have never been able to address is
how an intellectual entity is fictional. All works of fiction are
inventions of the mind, but not all inventions of the mind are
fiction. If the mind can invent the notion that people can sue and
be sued, then they can invent the notion that people can band
together to create entities that can also sue and be sued.

If people agree that it can be so, then it is so. If the 'real'
consequence of this agreement is that the entity to which I belong
can sue, and it sues, and it wins, then the very real consequences
of the suit proved the intellectual idea that it *can* sue..

Of course, you can continue to deny reality, but that makes it no
less real. It just means that you're in denial.

 

You're so full of shit it's just pathetic. My standards?? LMAO My you
idiots are getting desperate!!!

Readers, we're talking about "fiction", that which is opposed to what
is real. And in this case, we're talking about an "entity/being" and
whether or not it actually exists. Again, we're talking about an
"existence". If the "entity/being" actually exists, it is considered
real like a real man (an entity that actually exists) but if the
"entity/being" does not actually "exist", it is considered a
fictitious "entity/being". This is basic English as seen below..notice
how it says that we can't attach the word "real" with that of anything
to do with "persons".

----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Fictitious (Page: 556)

Fic*ti"tious (?), a. [L. fictitius. See Fiction.] Feigned; imaginary;
not real; fabulous; counterfeit; false; not genuine; as, fictitious
fame.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

fictitious

FICTI'TIOUS, a. [L. fictifius, from fingo, to feign.]

1. Feigned; imaginary; not real.
----------
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition

fictitious

2. fictional: invented by somebody's imagination, especially as part
of a work of fiction
----------
Cambridge International Dictionary of English

fictitious

adjective

invented and not true or not existing:
----------
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

fictitious

adjective

2. not real; pretended; false fictitious joy
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

real

RE'AL, a. [Low L. realis. The L. res and Eng. thing coincide exactly
with the Heb. a word, a thing, an event. See Read and Thing.]

1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as a
description of real life. The author describes a real scene or
transaction.
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Real (Page: 1194)

Re"al (?), a. [LL. realis, fr. L. res, rei, a thing: cf. F. réel. Cf.
Rebus.]

1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as, a
description of real life.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition

Main Entry:
1re·al

Function:
adjective

2 a: not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine <real gold> ;
also : being precisely what the name implies <a real professional> b
(1): occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a
story of real life> (2): of or relating to practical or everyday
concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3):
existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from
an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> — compare ideal
----------
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.
----------



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".



----------
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.
----------


And what of these "entities"? As professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University correctly describes them, they are FICTITIOUS
"entities". These "entities" do not actually "exist", as correctly
stated, THERE IS NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE. It is without question that
professor Patrick Healy understands English knowing that the word real
can only be attached to something "existing as a physical entity and
having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard". On
the other hand, me thinks AllYou the Dupe needs to go back to school
and learn basic English.


----------
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?.."
----------
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".
----------

To an idiot like you perhaps but to us folks who understand basic
English understand that when it comes to a government, a corporation,
we are talking about a FICTITIOUS "entity". We're talking about a
FICTION and that my friend is of great significance when dealing with
the laws of a corporation and its corporate structure. For one, it is
the understanding that the laws of a corporation are the commands of a
fictitious entity, it being unable to have oral discourse.

lol Well, the "entity" does not actually exist. In order for a real
man to sue "it", he needs to close his eyes and PRETEND as if the
entity actually existed. You see, it's all MAKE-BELIEVE. Worse yet,
people need to ACT on its behalf in order for it to be sued. Why? lol
Because it doesn't really exist, otherwise it would act well on its
own. The significance of all this is that people are ACTING, they
become ACTORS acting out a fiction and this is where a man's PERSON
comes in.

The FICTITIOUS "entity" has NO AUTHORITY over a REAL man, damn, the
entity doesn't even really exist!!! It only has AUTHORITY over
"personalities" (persons) found within its fictitious realm. Again,
this is where a man's PERSON comes in.

lol Do rights exist? Does love exist? Does law exist? Of course they
all exist. They would be considered fiction if they actually didn't
exist. Again, this is basic English. Who or what they are associated
with is a different story.

How can an "entity" that doesn't really exist be intellectual? LMAO
Just not so dupe, in fact, it is because that we are dealing with a
fiction that people have to ACT as its DIRECTING MIND before you can
consider IT as being "intellectual".

For us who understand the English language know that an "entity" that
does not really exist is called a fiction or fictitious entity.

It doesn't change the fact that the entities don't really exist and in
the English language we call them fictitious entities, FICTIONS.

----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Fictitious (Page: 556)

Fic*ti"tious (?), a. [L. fictitius. See Fiction.] Feigned; imaginary;
not real; fabulous; counterfeit; false; not genuine; as, fictitious
fame.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

fictitious

FICTI'TIOUS, a. [L. fictifius, from fingo, to feign.]

1. Feigned; imaginary; not real.
----------
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition

fictitious

2. fictional: invented by somebody's imagination, especially as part
of a work of fiction
----------
Cambridge International Dictionary of English

fictitious

adjective

invented and not true or not existing:
----------
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

fictitious

adjective

2. not real; pretended; false fictitious joy
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

real

RE'AL, a. [Low L. realis. The L. res and Eng. thing coincide exactly
with the Heb. a word, a thing, an event. See Read and Thing.]

1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as a
description of real life. The author describes a real scene or
transaction.
----------
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Real (Page: 1194)

Re"al (?), a. [LL. realis, fr. L. res, rei, a thing: cf. F. réel. Cf.
Rebus.]

1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as, a
description of real life.
----------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition

Main Entry:
1re·al

Function:
adjective

2 a: not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine <real gold> ;
also : being precisely what the name implies <a real professional> b
(1): occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a
story of real life> (2): of or relating to practical or everyday
concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3):
existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from

The "entities" are NOT real, that's why people have to ACT on its
behalf. The only thing people agree on is that they have to close
their eyes and PRETEND as if the entity was real.

Readers!!! How many of you have "agreed" to belong to a fictitious
entity!! LMAO

"It" can't do ANYTHING. "It" doesn't really exist. "It" is just a
fiction. You can PRETEND that "it" can sue but then again, you would
be living in a world of FICTION, a world of MAKE -BELIEVE.

Bwahahahahaha You can continue to live in a MAKE-BELIEVE world, but
that makes it no more less MAKE-BELIEVE. It just means that you're in
denial.

Readers, come see what these shills are so desperate in trying to hide
from you!!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Abbot) The trouble with your arguement is that you can't find a
single ruling that says that. It's only your warped version of the law
that says that!

 

In

You're the one who bases your assertion that corporations are
fictional because they are not tangible. Well, neither cults nor
corporations are separate from the people who comprise them, are
they? Neither one of them are separate individuals, are they?

Those are *your* standards for what is real, and what is fictional.

There it is again. Only individual people are real. The
associations they form are matters of the intellect, and therefore,
according to you, ficticious.

Like a cult, right?

Notwithstanding that real fact that the above is a flawed leap of
logic, *if* it were true, it would also be true of "cults". Are you
starting to see what I mean by "your standards" yet? Are you
starting to get the idea that the "readers", if there are any, will
not see that you're doing your argument more harm than good?

LOL! Like cults, right?

The last and most comfortable refuge of those with a failed argument
is the world of insults and attacks.

If the people who are a voluntary part of a society agree that a
corporation will be treated, in some respects, as a separate entity,
and the effects of that agreement become very real, 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.

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.

Again, so what? If I, and all of the people who are also part of
the society to which I and they voluntarily belong have agreed that
we wish 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.

Why are you arguing what everyone else seems to already know? Of
course an entity has no authority of its own, especially in a
society from which people are free to withdraw. 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. 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.

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.

You just answered your own question when you said that love and
rights and right are all real. Can you touch any of them?

You seems to understand *some* English, but you don't seem to much
much a grasp of logic. 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.

And that doesn't make the effects of such entites any less real.

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.

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?

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?

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.

 

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/HousePublica...?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.

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.
----------

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/HousePublica...?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.

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/HousePublica...?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)

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.

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.

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.
----------

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.

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.
----------

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.

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.
----------

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/HousePublica...?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?
----------

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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/HousePublica...?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'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/HousePublica...?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?
----------

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.
----------

The "effects" of the FRAUD are real enough, I will not argue with you
there.

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".

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

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.

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

 

Abbot) Lex, you can’t even shoot straight about your own use of
logical fallacies! It would appear that you are either purposefully
misrepresenting your argument or that you don’t know what your own
argument is!

The problem with your reasoning is not that you say governments are
the creations of men and society. Despite the fact that nobody argues
against that premise you seem to have fixated upon pretending that you
have won some sort of debate point.

The problem comes when you try to say that democratic governments fit
one usage of the legal definition of “fictitious” meaning they are
“not real” and “nonexistent”.

You do this by using the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle
to wrongly pretend that the words “fiction” (which you cherry picked
from court decisions) and “fictitious” have the same meaning and usage
in all ways.

We have covered this ground countless times, but you still don’t get
it! I suspect you are the retard here, Lex.