The Corporate Lie

In

Your reading comprehension skills are worse than I thought. I'll
try to be a little bit more clear........

You're the one who bases your assertion that corporations are
fictional *specifically because* they are not tangible.

[snip where the professor made a different case for a different
assertion]

You can't validly base your argument on what the law says because,
as you know, the law was codified by the very governments which you
claim are fiction. And so, if the government is just as fictional
as a cartoon, or the Boogie Man under your bed, then so is the law.
Either everything in Fred Flinstones world is fictional, or it is
not. Make your choice.

[snip quotes from works of fiction]

But that's all fiction according to you, and so you so can't validly
rely upon it as an argument.

[snip more of what you admit is just fiction]

Thanks for proving my point about your last refuge.

I guess you missed the 'voluntary' part. Are you suggesting that
you're being held by this society against your will?

So what's your beef? No one, except you, thinks it's a huge
revelation that governments, and corporations, and the law, and
math, and science, and even languge are all inventions of the mind
that we use as tools in order to facilitate our interactions with
other people. Of course they are. so what is really your point?
Or are you so obsessed with trying to argue something that everyone
else knows that you've actually lost sight of the reason that you're
making these arguments?

As you are. For you to constantly quote a law which was created by
a government which you claim is a fiction means that you, probably
more than most, are acting out a fiction every time you argue about
what the law says. That makes you the most prolific actor I'v
witnessed in Usenet.

I don't know of any unsuspecting victims. Everyone of whom I'm
aware knows that they can withdraw from this society, and are all
reasonably aware of the terms and conditions which will apply to
them if they continue to participate in this society. They all know
about the taxes they'll have to pay, and about the laws that will
apply to them, and about how they'll be held to their commitments to
others.

Then why do you keep quoting from that with was produced by that
fiction?

People can withdraw from this society by leaving it. The fact that
there aren't all that many places to go which are not yet other
societies doesn't mean that there aren't places to go. It just
means that most people choose to join societies.

My experience with what people know, and of what they are aware is
completely different than that. In my experience, people are fully
aware that love, and family, and math, and language, and government,
and rights, and a whole host of other such things are concepts, and
products of the human intellect, and that they use all of those in
order to guide their conduct as it relates to others. In fact, it's
been my experience that there aren't too many people who make the
kinds of mistakes in logic that you do.

You've proven by your posts here that you believe that just because
all widgets are gadgets, that all gadgets must therefore be widgets.
You've also proven that you have little to no ability to grasp the
notion of how the same word can have different meanings when used in
different contexts.

No, that's not what I mean at all. Sheeeesh!

What makes you think that people do not understand the effects of
suing a corporation, or of being sued by a corporation? All the
people of whom I'm aware know the affects of that.

The answer is that it isn't tangible, but just as math exists even
though it's not tangible, and even though it's an invention of the
human mind, corporations exist in the same way. They are inventions
of the human mind, but the fact that people recognize their
existence (just as they do math), and conduct their affairs
accordingly, means that they are very real (just as math is), yet,
intangible.

And if the law (which you claim is fictitious too) really did say
that corporations are just fiction, then any and all court cases to
which any corporation was a party would be dismissed on that basis.
Do you know of any such cases? Even one?

That should tell you that people who study what the words used in
the law mean from a *legal* perspective do not mean what you think
they mean. The use of so-called "plain English" is not enough when
trying to interpret the law.

And society is not demanding that the law either be changed, or be
recognized as meaning what you claim it means, so that the effects
end up being whatever it is that you're arguing they should be. If
this society wanted to abolish what they believe about the existence
of government or corporations, then it would do so.

Insults which only serve to mask your fear about the weakness of
your argument notwithstanding (nor your obsession with someone else
in your exchanges with me), I find it interesting that you actually
belive that any of this is a huge revelation.

We're not friends.

 

LMAO 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.

----------
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?
----------


Readers, hahahaha please do excuse the forum jester while we wait for
a response from AllYou. Remember, Abbot the Retard is one of the
parasites trying to foist the Corporate Lie on you...


----------
"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)
----------

Come see what the ranting old fool is trying to hide from you!!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Abbot) Lex, you can’t even shoot straight about your own use of

Abbot 2) So show me the link where Healy says that governments don't
exist! And if you can find that statement then you can show me the
same in the law.

 

Abbot) Lex, you can’t even shoot straight about your own use of

Abbot 2) Readers will note that Lex avoids a discussion of his use of
the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle and moves on to the
fallacy of the argument by authority.

He tells us that "Patrick Healy knows" and that we should believe him.

So, Lex show me the link/source where Healy says that governments
don't exist! And if you can find that statement then you can show me
the same in the law.

Substance is required!

 

Bwahahahahahahaha No no no jester, they should believe a lying piece
of shit like you!!!!

----------
"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)
----------


Hahahaha I mean what a sore LOSER readers!!! The only way he can
possibly win this stupid and utterly ridiculous "middle" argument is
by saying that we shouldn't believe the expert testimony of a
professor of law. TALK ABOUT A FASCIST PIG. There's no other way to
describe this PARASITE.

----------
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?
----------


A CORPORATION is a FICTION by DEFINITION. THEY are but FICTITIOUS
ENTITIES.

A GOVERNMENT is a CORPORATION (the "personification" of an
"undertaking")

A GOVERNMENT is a FICTION, a FICTITIOUS ENTITY

There is no BULLSHIT "undistributed middle" argument here. Just
ANOTHER of Abbot the Retard's LIES.

LOL my poor jester.

You wouldn't know "substance" if it bit you in the ass!!

Please have AllYou explain the following to you. Obviously there's
isn't a grownup there to help you.

----------
POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=114&page=270

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

"The state itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible,
immutable."
----------
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.
----------


That's enough with the BULLSHIT...

AllYou, I await your answer.

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Wow. How often does anyone at McGill get quoted as an authority?

Not Harvard. Not Yale. Not Stanford. Not MIT. Not Cornell. Not
Princeton. Not any other of the hundreds of leading education and research
institutions in the world.



And who was that person? Patrick Healy?

http://www.mcgill.ca/directory/staff/
"McGill University Staff directory"
"We're sorry, but your search query did not return any result."



Hmmmmm. I suspect a fictitious professor.

 

Abbot) Lex, you can’t even shoot straight about your own use
of

Abbot 3) Lex, you didn't answer the question. You were asked to find
where Healy and the law say that governments don't exist! All you did
was repeat your insults and tell us that democratic governments are
the creations of the people. One wonders how it has escaped you that
your "the people created something nonexistent" argument is sadly self
contradictory.

 

In

<sigh> No, you really do NOT get it.

[snip the embarrasing proof that you do not]

Why do you keep pointing to what you surely must believe are works
of fiction in order to prove your point?

 

Well there you have it readers!!! LMAO The FASCIST PIGS now go in
denial. How sweet it is.

----------
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?
----------


Contrary to the rants from our FASCIST PIGS who have now gone into
denial, we have in this thread established the following...

A Corporation is a FICTION, THEY are but FICTITIOUS ENTITIES.

A Government is a CORPORATION (the "personification" of an
"undertaking").

A Government is a FICTION, a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.

People ACT on behalf of the FICTITIOUS ENTITY.

Readers it's time to move on. It's time to now elaborate on this
notion that people are "acting" (actors) on behalf of a "fictitious
entity".

Now readers, watch how the fascist pigs will refuse to directly answer
the following question... (I'll post it again just to show you)

When Blackstone, speaking on the doctrine of coverture, says that "the
husband and wife are one person in law", was he talking about
"artificial persons" or "natural persons"? One or the other, which one
was it?

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

It's been a long day. Let's see if they answer the question.

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Abbot) So where exactly in any Supreme Court ruling, not in your
interpretation of what the court said, does the Court plainly say that
the U.S. government and its courts have no lawful authority over “free
willed men”, or “real men”, as you are referring to yourself today?

Instead of giving us a decision that states as binding dicta that
government and its courts have no authority over “free willed men” or
“real’ men you have cherry picked the language of various court
decisions (sometimes even dissenting decisions) and then applied YOUR
OWN inference telling us that the courts meant to say what they never
really said!

Your argument is based upon logical fallacies, already outlined in
detail here, and the unspoken, wrongly held, frankly stupid
presumption that governments and courts can't have authority over
individuals because the governments don't have bodies and people do.

A non-substantive response in support of your conclusion (which you
lack the courage to even state) will result the assumption that there
is no such decision, that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

In

[snip more evasions of a simple question]

As you are clearly proving, name-calling is the last refuge of those
who know that their position is lost. Why not just answer the
question? It's pretty simple logic, actually. If the law is
created by governments, and governments are fictions, then the law
is fiction too, right?

If not, then see if, without acrimony or insults, you can construct
a mature, and well reasoned answer to that very simple question, and
not some other question you need to create from whole cloth.

 

What a deceiving FASCIST PIG!!!!! Here we are talking about an
"entity" created from the act of incorporation, an "entity" said to
having its own rights and liabilities and the buffoon dismisses the
following remarks about the liabilities and responsibilities of that
"entity" as being irrelevant.

----------
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?
----------


I think it's obvious to all readers by now that these idiots are
nothing but lying pieces of shit and will stop at nothing in order to
deceive you.

And notice how nobody wants to answer the following??? LMAO

When Blackstone speaking on the doctrine of coverture says that "the
husband and wife are one person in law:"... was he talking about
"artificial persons" or "natural persons"?

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

I'll get back to you my dear readership!!

In the meantime, come see what these LIARS are so desperately trying
to hide from you!!!!

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

In

I know that the anger you're exhibiting is as a result of the fear
you have about the validity of your position, but if you could calm
down long enough to follow along, you'd see that those remarks are
not relevant to the part of *your* argument that corporations are
fictitious specifically because they are not tangible.

As to what the professor has said about what the law says, the law
was created by the government which you say is fictional.
Therefore, the law must be fictional as well. In reality, the part
of your argument that's based upon the law is like you using
something that Fred Flintstone said as proof of anything. Fred
Flintstone is a work of fiction, and so anything that Fred 'says' is
also fiction. Duh!

*If*, as you claim, government is fiction, then the law must be
fiction too, and so for you use that work of fiction as proof of
anything tells me (and all of the readers <snicker>) that you
believe everything that Fred Flintstone says.

<sigh>

 

Abbot 3) Lex, so far all you have proven is that the people of western
democracies have gathered their governments together and that those
governments have no bodies. So what?

What you can’t establish is your conclusion that governments and their
courts have no lawful authority over “real’ men, as you call yourself.
You can’t prove your conclusion, and won’t even state it, because it
has no basis in law, history or fact. In the end your argument is
advanced by the use of logical fallacies and based on the unspoken,
wrongly held and frankly obtuse presumption that governments and
courts can't have authority over individuals because the governments
don't have bodies and people do.

That's nuts!

You can only haughtily presume to have proven your conclusion knowing
full well that your lame theory is exactly what a few gullible detax
wannabes wanted to hear in the first place. In the end you got a lame,
laughable theory and a website nobody visits.

The sad truth is you have spent the last 10 years in your basement
pounding away at the theory that should have failed the smell test the
first time you heard it.

 

This from an IDIOT who didn't even know that we were dealing with
corporate entities to start with having denied over and over again
that we were dealing with corporations of any sort!!!

Bwahahahahahaha what a sore loser.

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

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

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

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

"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot aka
Austin Rayder)
----------


Is it any wonder readers that now the ignoramus can't understand why
the separate entity created from the act of incorporation "can act"
and "be seen" ONLY IN THE ACTS of those who administer its affairs
(actors)??? LMAO


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

"Nations, or States, are denominated by publicists bodies politic; and
are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and
resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United States may
be termed a corporation; they are a collective invisible body, which
can act and be seen only in the acts of those who administer the
affairs of the government . . .. It may be so said of each State
singly. So the king of England is a corporation; and so is
parliament."
----------


Certainly don't expect the ignoramus to be able to answer the
following question which will help us elaborate on the issue of an
entity which "can act" and "be seen" ONLY IN THE ACTS of those who
administer its affairs (actors).

When Blackstone speaking on the doctrine of coverture says that "the
husband and wife are one person in law:"... was he talking about
"artificial persons" or "natural persons"?

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


The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

 

Abbot 4) Lex, now you use the straw man fallacy by ascribing to me
beliefs I do not l hold. . .all so you can avoid the reality that
government IS granted, by people, the authority which your lame theory
denies it.

 

In
Lex Quadruplator <> babbled something
about fiction:

The pathetic part of all of your postings is that for all of your
claims to understand plain English, and for all of your assertions
that others do not, it's just the opposite. From Webster's:

Fiction :
Law; an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist,
made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a
rule of law.

Do you really understand what that means, or do you still want to
cling to the notion that fiction means cartoons and the like, and
nothing more.

Hint: The key phrases in that definition are:
1) "made by authority of law"
2) "to bring a case"
3) "within the operation of a rule of law"

That's not to say that those should be taken out of context any more
than the phrase:
"that is known not to exist"
can be taken out of context, but rather, that those phrases are a
very integral part of the definition.

Do you need any more explanation of what those words, as used in
that context, mean? If you're going to quote the law, and those who
understand the law, then you must use the definitions of those words
*as those words were used* in those quotes, and not assign some
other meaning of your own choosing to them.

What all of that means is that while a corporation does not exist in
a tangible sense, that it was created by the law to exist as an
entity *within the law* (that you love to quote) so that it can
bring a case on behalf of it's 'members' (i.e., owners), and so that
the limits of its liabilities can be defined *within the law*.

It does not mean that it's all just make believe, and that
everything of which it facilitated the creation (e.g, tax
liabilities, the law, etc...) is also fiction. Those tax bills
(i.e, cases) are very real, and the creation of the corporation
*within the law* simply facilitates their issuance on behalf of the
members of that corporation.

Proof of the nonsense of your position, which is that because a
corporation is fictitious, it's tax bills, which are a product of
that fiction are also fictitious, is the logical next step which is
that all the products of that fiction must also be fictitious, which
includes the very law that you use to make your case.

I've heard of circular logic wherein the premise of an argument can
only be true if the argument is true (which renders the argument
meaningless), but your's is the first case where the premise of your
argument actually works to destroy your argument. If the product of
something which is fictitious must also be ficticious, then the law,
which is a product of that so-called ficticious government, and
which you use as the foundation of your argument, must also be
fictitious. IOW, by *your* logic, you might as well be quoting Fred
Flinstone in support of your position.

Sheeeeeeeesh! I'm glad that's finally been settled, once and for
all time.

 

Abbot) Lex simply doesn’t want the law to apply to him. It’s just that
simple.

Rather than take the more honest libertarian approach and advocate for
the abolishment of government, Lex takes a self-deceiving approach by
which he convinces himself that the law itself says government has no
authority over him.

That way the poor boy doesn’t have to do anything but sit in his
basement and heighten his powers of denial. Denial which has become so
strong that one can point out to him, in excruciating detail, exactly
what is wrong with his argument and he still won’t get it.

The irony is that Lex, who lacks the intellectual courage to see his
argument as BS, likes to think he doesn’t need government when in fact
he is highly dependent on the government for his ongoing medical care.
I suspect that Lex’s deep seeded resentment of authority has a good
portion of its roots in the requirement that he jump through the hoops
of the Canada’s government run medical system.

 

In

"Yeah, but 'The Flinstones' is fictitious because someone said that
the law in Bedrock says........."

Does it get any sadder than that? Notwithstanding the fact that he
doesn't understand what the word 'fictitious' means, even by his own
meaning of the word, he doesn't understand that if he's going to
make a valid case that 'Bedrock' is a fictitious place, he can't
validly do so by using what the law in 'Bedrock' says. There are
innumerable other ways to make that case if someone really wanted to
waste their time doing it, but none of them include using the laws
of 'Bedrock'.

 

It is you IDIOTS who believe that the IMMORTAL BEING as found in a
story written by man (constitution) about an immortal being with
supreme powers identified as a "person", commanding over its subjects,
also called "persons", with what it calls "laws".. is SOMEHOW REAL. I
wouldn't be surprised at all if you IDIOTS thought that Bedrock was a
real place as WELL.

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org