The Corporate Lie

[AllYou!]

In

Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.

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]

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.

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.

LMAO NO, it is not just according to me!!!

[snip quotes from works of fiction]

NO. A "cult" does not represent a SEPARATE ENTITY from that of
its
members. (Unless of course they were INCORPORATED)

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]

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.

Thanks for proving my point about your last refuge.

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.

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

Right.

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?

One VERY significant fact.

People become ACTORS acting out a FICTION.

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.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to exercise this FRAUD on unsuspecting VICTIMS.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

And if people understood the "source" of those "effects"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

Sloppy use of words??? No my friend,

We're not friends.

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

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.

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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1

---

"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."

---

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?
----------


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]

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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!

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

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.

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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1

---

"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."

---

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?
----------


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.

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!

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

 

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

....professor of law at McGill University.....

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]

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

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

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.

 

[AllYou!]

In

LMAO According to the expert testimony of Patrick Healy,

<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?

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

InLex Quadruplator <[email protected]> mused:

LMAO According to the expert testimony of Patrick Healy,

<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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1

---

"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."

---

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?
----------


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]

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.

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.

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

You are unable to defend your use of the logical fallacy of the
undistributed middle.

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!!!

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.

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

Here's the post you took the trouble to
erase:http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/5f299113271466f2?hl=en

I erased your post??? LMAO

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[AllYou!]

In

InLex Quadruplator <[email protected]> mused:

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.

LMAO According to the expert testimony of Patrick Healy,

<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.

[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.

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

In

Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.

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]

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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1

---

"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."

---

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?
----------


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

 

[AllYou!]

In

In

InLex Quadruplator <[email protected]> mused:

In the pro corporate taxslave plantation cult,

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

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

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

Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=65268....

---

"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 Liewww.lexquadruplator.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

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

In the pro corporate taxslave plantation cult,
Cults are an invention of the mind, and therefore, by your
standards, are fictional.
You're so full of shit it's just pathetic. My standards?? LMAO
My you idiots are getting desperate!!!
You're the one who bases your assertion that corporations are
fictional because they are not tangible.
Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.
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]

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....


"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"?

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 Liewww.lexquadruplator.org-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Abbot]

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.

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 Liewww.lexquadruplator.org

In the pro corporate taxslave plantation cult,
Cults are an invention of the mind, and therefore, by your
standards, are fictional.
You're so full of shit it's just pathetic. My standards?? LMAO
My you idiots are getting desperate!!!
You're the one who bases your assertion that corporations are
fictional because they are not tangible.
Me and Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University.
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]
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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=65268...
---
"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 Liewww.lexquadruplator.org-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[AllYou!]

In
Lex Quadruplator <[email protected]> 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]

InLex Quadruplator <[email protected]> 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.

 

[AllYou!]

In

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.

"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'.

 

[Lex Quadruplator]

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