Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

[Arouet]

So boring that Arouet follows cecil1s posting history... indeed.(how could he not it's horribly interesting!)

Well, Canadian protectionist legislation is quite dull. You're actually fairly entertaining - when you mix it up though, the repetition can be boring.

When Arouet and studies trusts abit more and is able to differentiate between the words business and person according to canadian law then i'll come back and teach him an education.

Nice to see you back in form!

Unique? Everyone in my family, all my friends, everyone i've ever talked to agrees with me and says that you're just a disinfo troll. Nobodies this stupid.

Well, the Canadian government got a tip that you were going to post here, so they sent me out to handle it. I got a bonus for my work so thanks!

P.S. a cop was the one who got me to start reading these acts.

anyways peace out trustees![/quote]

[Arouet]

Cecil1, where did you get that beautiful list? Wish I'd seen it in time to post it on Mayday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... rebellions

[cecil1]

Still haven't figured out the difference between a business and a person yet Arouet? No?

Lemme know when it happens, bye =)

[Arouet]

Still haven't figured out the difference between a business and a person yet Arouet? No?

Lemme know when it happens, bye =)

See. I go and give you a nice compliment about how entertaining you are, then you follow it up with this? You disappoint me cecil!

[cecil1]

not yet eh? i'll keep checking, peace =)

[cecil1]

[Arouet]

oh, hey cecil, whatup?

[cecil1]

Coming back with nothing new is still running away. Like the pic?

[Arouet]

Ummm, I'm not sure what you are looking for. I don't have anything new for you. I've made my arguments. You have rejected them. The only thing I could do would be to make them all over again but I don't think anyone is interested in reading that. You could start reading the thread from the begining and you'll be able to see my position here.

What you might want to do is find a legal resource person that you trust and run your interpretation by them. I

As it stands I've explained to you where you are wrong. I know that others have as well. You are convinced of your opinion despite the fact that no-one else shares them. I'm not sure what else do say. While there are many topics that bear repetition this simply isn't one of them. You're fixated on an obscure piece of legislation related to canadian protectionist policies. You've completely misinterpreted them to imagine that they mean something fantastic involving people being "owned" by the state and being legal slaves. While certainly that would be much more interesting to talk about, the legislation simply doesn't establish what you think it does.

[cecil1]

Ummm, I'm not sure what you are looking for. I don't have anything new for you. I've made my arguments. You have rejected them. I only rejected your interpretation that conflicted with the governments position, it has nothing to do with you personally, your logic is faulty so surely you can't blame me for rejecting faulty logic, well I suppose you could but that would hardly be skeptical of you. The only thing I could do would be to make them all over again but I don't think anyone is interested in reading that. The topic thread keeps going up though, contradicting your statement that you don't think anyone would be interested in reading this thread, seeing as this thread count keeps going up the statement you made contradicts reality. Plus i'm in the thread, remember your wonderful compliment earlier that i'm entertaining? Why take that away from me now Arouet? You could start reading the thread from the begining and you'll be able to see my position here. No you have not explained how a businesses definition is expanded to include a natural person, please do so it would shed light on your reasoning.

What you might want to do is find a legal resource person that you trust and run your interpretation by them. I
So in all honesty Arouet, if someone wanted to actually know what was in an act how would they go about doing that? You know getting that knowledge? How would someone be able to know what is in an act if they didnt find out for themself? If someone else were to tell me what the act said that would only be me believing in something I didn't know was true regardless if I trusted that person(s) or not correct? So you see the problem i'm faced with by proposing to gather "trusted" information don't you? It's not knowledge you espout it's belief and that is like asking me to become religious, isn't that silly of you?As it stands I've explained to you where you are wrong. No you have repeatedly dodged answering my question, while you are not obligated to answer it surely doesn't help your lack of a case, see above. I know that others have as well. Likewise they dodge this question as well, your point? You are convinced of your opinion despite the fact that no-one else shares them. Opinion is defined as a personal speculation and speculation is defined as guesswork, I told you I am not interested in your personal speculations or guesswork, I am interested in truth, fact and knowledge and have close personal friends who share these interests and agree with me, one friend however (amazingly) believes you to be sadly misinformed or horribly ignorant and not deliberately spreading disinformation so that is a bonus for your image I suppose. I'm not sure what else do say. I do, in your mind, what is the difference between a business and a person which you use to hold your entire fabricated story together? The similarities? While there are many topics that bear repetition this simply isn't one of them. That is a very jaded opinion you hold, i'm sure someone who is not so biased on the subject will come along and have a decent discussion, i'll hold out for it no worries sir. You're fixated on an obscure piece of legislation related to canadian protectionist policies. Is that what you call an act respecting ownership and control determination now? You don't think ownership and control determination could possibly be obfuscated for the benefit of the wealthy? So anyone who takes an interest in subjects like equity ownership control determination trusts or even something as mundane as ... math, is a fixation? Just because your attention level regarding more advanced or difficult topics is not as high as others does not mean in the slightest that the person with the higher attention level is fixated on the topic, that is usually how a debate or discussion works Arouet, revolving around a topic looking at it logically. What is not logical is your interpretation that a person is a business. You continue to dodge this much needed explaination to further elaborate your unique position. Ready to do so or continue to dodge? You've completely misinterpreted them to imagine that they mean something fantastic involving people being "owned" by the state and being legal slaves. While certainly that would be much more interesting to talk about, the legislation simply doesn't establish what you think it does. Then please explain how you construe the meaning of the word person to include business when the defintion in the act for the purpose of that act does not define business as a category of person? How can you proceed with your intepretation when the legislation does not align with your presumptions? Thanks!

[Arouet]

OMG, why must you respond in a manner that makes my eyes bleed and makes it really hard to separate your response from my post. Please use the quote tags [quote ] [/quote ] (remove spaces) makes it much easier.

I only rejected your interpretation that conflicted with the governments position, it has nothing to do with you personally, your logic is faulty so surely you can't blame me for rejecting faulty logic, well I suppose you could but that would hardly be skeptical of you.

No. You misunderstood what you were reading and I explained where you were off.

The topic thread keeps going up though, contradicting your statement that you don't think anyone would be interested in reading this thread, seeing as this thread count keeps going up the statement you made contradicts reality.

Ok Lurkers: if you are interested in having me go through once again the legal minutia of this topic, please make an account and post! If you're not interested, please also make an account and post.

No you have not explained how a businesses definition is expanded to include a natural person, please do so it would shed light on your reasoning.

I've explained that a business corporation IS a legal person. And that that is the type of legal person who would be getting a certificate under this act.

But don't take my word for it. Contact the government as a human person and see if you can get a certificate?

So in all honesty Arouet, if someone wanted to actually know what was in an act how would they go about doing that? You know getting that knowledge? How would someone be able to know what is in an act if they didnt find out for themself?

If they didn't understand the law they should consult someone who does. You have consulted me, for example, a lawyer. IF you don't accept the interpretation I have given I have suggested that you contact someone else who understands the law - preferably a lawyer and even more preferably a corporate lawyer (which I am not).. I'm sure you must know a lawyer or two, whether IRL or on one forum or another. Ask them to interpret the act, and look at the sources we have here and see if their interpretation differs from mine.

If someone else were to tell me what the act said that would only be me believing in something I didn't know was true regardless if I trusted that person(s) or not correct?

The problem is you don't know enough to know why you are wrong. What would be clear to someone with a legal background might not be clear to a lay person. You don't have the background to understand what you are reading. You are not alone - most people get completely lost reading legislation. That's why lawyers are necessary in the first place.

So you see the problem i'm faced with by proposing to gather "trusted" information don't you? It's not knowledge you espout it's belief and that is like asking me to become religious, isn't that silly of you?

Ummm, no. We're not discussion metaphysics here. We're discussing legislation. It's nothing like religious discussion.

No you have repeatedly dodged answering my question, while you are not obligated to answer it surely doesn't help your lack of a case, see above. I know that others have as well. Likewise they dodge this question as well, your point?

I really don't think I have dodged any of your questions, but if you think I haven't addresed one of your points above, please repost them.

Opinion is defined as a personal speculation and speculation is defined as guesswork, I told you I am not interested in your personal speculations or guesswork, I am interested in truth, fact and knowledge and have close personal friends who share these interests and agree with me, one friend however (amazingly) believes you to be sadly misinformed or horribly ignorant and not deliberately spreading disinformation so that is a bonus for your image I suppose.

Well, I have acknowledged that I am not an expert in corporate law and probably have some of the finer points wrong, but I'm fairly confident in my overall assessment of this legislation and its purpose. But if your friends want to come into this conversation let them come in and correct me. Are any of these people lawyers though? I would be more interested in their opinion on this if they were.

I do, in your mind, what is the difference between a business and a person which you use to hold your entire fabricated story together?

A business corporation is a type of legal person. So is a business partnership. A sole proprietorship does not exist as a separate person but is invested in the actual person.

Person here is a legal term. Not a person as in "human" though a human is of course a legal person too.

Is that what you call an act respecting ownership and control determination now?

Yes. Precisely. Figuring out whether a business is canadian owned or not is a pretty dry topic. Much of law is pretty dry though.

You don't think ownership and control determination could possibly be obfuscated for the benefit of the wealthy?

There was a crisis going on that affected the entire economy so it was geared towards helping everyone though it also pitted rich people from one side of the country against rich people on the other side of the country. It is debatable whether it acheived that goal or not. But again, you're thinking of a fictional version of the legislation. I agree if your interpretation was correct it would be a very interesting piece of legislation indeed. Actaully, to many it was interesting legislation as the national energy proram enraged many and there is still resentment about it today.

So anyone who takes an interest in subjects like equity ownership control determination trusts or even something as mundane as ... math, is a fixation? Just because your attention level regarding more advanced or difficult topics is not as high as others does not mean in the slightest that the person with the higher attention level is fixated on the topic, that is usually how a debate or discussion works Arouet, revolving around a topic looking at it logically.

I've said fixated since this seems to be the only topic you want to discuss. And we did discuss it in detail. I've asked you if you had any other topics you want to talk about but you haven't brought any up.

What is not logical is your interpretation that a person is a business.

Well, I said a business is a person. But in a sole proprietorship indeed the person is the business.

You continue to dodge this much needed explaination to further elaborate your unique position. Ready to do so or continue to dodge?

I haven't dodged you. Many types of businesses, such as a corporation, are legal persons. This is a pretty non-controversial point. Corporate and Civil law are founded on it.

Then please explain how you construe the meaning of the word person to include business when the defintion in the act for the purpose of that act does not define business as a category of person? How can you proceed with your intepretation when the legislation does not align with your presumptions? Thanks!

As I said above: a business is a person. There is no provision of the act which excludes businesses from the definition of legal person.

[Arouet]

Here, look:

“person”
« personne »
“person” means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons;

[cecil1]

OMG, why must you respond in a manner that makes my eyes bleed and makes it really hard to separate your

response from my post. Please use the quote tags [quote ] [/quote ] (remove spaces) makes it much easier.

Seeing as you request something of me i'll return the favor and request when you quote my replies please do not add your own

quote as part of the quote you are indicating was me, it is incorrect regardless of wether it is intentional or not. On the

original note I was not aware of your colour blindness, either that or opening your eyes every morning must invoke an episode

of eye bleeding due to all the colours, horrible really. I'll simply assume you're colour blind.

No. You misunderstood what you were reading and I explained where you were off.

No. You misunderstand what the word person includes regarding canadian law, I explained where you were off as does the act in

the definitions section.

Ok Lurkers: if you are interested in having me go through once again the legal minutia of this topic, please

make an account and post! If you're not interested, please also make an account and post.

If someone read this far and created an account just to post the words not interested, wouldn't they have had to been

interested enough to make the post? Just use the post counter it's not self defeating like your idea is.

I've explained that a business corporation IS a legal person.

As is an individual, which i've explained to you and the legislation has stated this as well. You have not explained how a

business is an individual. An individual can be in a business but an individual is not actually a business.

And that that is the type of legal person who would be getting a certificate under this act

Only persons who are not non-eligible can apply for the certificate with certain provisions provided, it says nothing about

restrictions other than this, please, please, please prove me wrong. Very easy for you to do, just post the section of the

act that differentiates what category of persons this act affects. Perhaps it's in the regulations? Simply point it out and

prove me wrong. Quit stalling and make your point!

But don't take my word for it. Contact the government as a human person and see if you can get a

certificate?

Don't take my word for it, read section 19 of the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 on the department of

justice website which says this information is an evidentiary privilege. (even though the act itself is evidence.) Who wrote

this section? Was it... the government?!?!?!?

If they didn't understand the law they should consult someone who does.

So you completely ignore the fact that even a trusted confident cannot give the gift of knowledge, one has to learn for

themself. Why on earth should I trust anothers word when I can find out for myself? I understand english very easy, the law

is written in english with definitions provided, this isn't rocket science, how do you manage to garble it all up so badly?

You have consulted me, for example, a lawyer.

I disagree. What I did was post my thoughts in a forum thread designed for this topic. If anything you consulted me about my

understanding of this act based on the legislation itself, why you disagree with the governments position remains a mystery.

IF you don't accept the interpretation I have given I have suggested that you contact someone else who

understands the law

How shall I contact myself? Please elaborate this unique thought of yours. Why would I contact other lawyers when I got one

in front of me (so to speak) who cannot understand the difference between the word business and person? It is laughable.

- preferably a lawyer and even more preferably a corporate lawyer (which I am not).. I'm sure you must know

a lawyer or two, whether IRL or on one forum or another. Ask them to interpret the act, and look at the sources we have here

and see if their interpretation differs from mine.

Argument from authority? If the entire planet believed that the sun revolved around the earth what would consulting an

"authority" on the matter prove? I believe the person who disrupted your argument many years ago was named Galileo.

The problem is you don't know enough to know why you are wrong.

I apply this statement to you, the non-corporate lawyer attempting to make sense of corporate-trust legislation outside of

his trained comprehension who cannot even properly differentiate between the words business and person.

What would be clear to someone with a legal background might not be clear to a lay person.

Exactly! I suggest you read the business corporations act and begin to obtain a grasp on the fundaments of corporate

structure, what an excellent way to begin your legal background in corporate law!

You don't have the background to understand what you are reading.

Funny how is it that i'm able to respond to you? Is the law written in english/french or not?

You are not alone - most people get completely lost reading legislation. That's why lawyers are necessary in

the first place.

Even the ones who cannot distiguish between a business and a person according to law? Amazing. I didn't think learning the

english language even required a lawyer. Just to confirm, did you consult a lawyer in your english class in elementary

school? Excuse me if I don't believe you if your answer is yes. You'll have to forgive me on that. Your statement is so

incredibly incredulous.

Ummm, no. We're not discussion metaphysics here. We're discussing legislation. It's nothing like religious

discussion.

Asking me to simply "believe" in you or anyone else instead of obtaining the knowledge from the source is like asking me to

believe in anything else without proof, just...like...religion. Sorry I don't believe you, you'll have to prove it to me and

that is going to be difficult for you to do when your intepretations are not supported by the act. I apologize for being so

stubborn however surely you would prefer a rational discussion over a zealous tell me what to think attitude? I may be wrong

on that as you continue to direct me to more figures of "authority" and continue to advise against reading the act as if it

was not written in english but it appears you do not want to get "into it" with me you would rather shluff your own ignorance

off as someone elses ignorance, it is not, it belongs to you sir.

I really don't think I have dodged any of your questions, but if you think I haven't addresed one of your

points above, please repost them.

Where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 publicly displayed on the department of justice website

does it diferentiate between the certain types of persons affected by this legislation besides the non-eligible and not

non-eligible persons?

Well, I have acknowledged that I am not an expert in corporate law and probably have some of the finer points

wrong, but I'm fairly confident in my overall assessment of this legislation and its purpose. But if your friends want to

come into this conversation let them come in and correct me. Are any of these people lawyers though? I would be more

interested in their opinion on this if they were.

The finer points being that for the greater certainy a seperate trust exists in respect of all assets property and

investments hmmm? Are any of these people I speak of familiar with the english language? Yes they are. Something which you

are not apparently. business=person. Hmm yes yes I see your point... ummm nevermind no I don't and neither does the law or

anyone else who's read this topic that understands english.

A business corporation is a type of legal person. So is a business partnership. A sole proprietorship does

not exist as a separate person but is invested in the actual person.

Person here is a legal term. Not a person as in "human" though a human is of course a legal person too.

Actually person is defined in this act with the inclusion of the word individual which just happens to be synonymous with a

human being. Where is this not the case in this act? Also as an added note, putting the word business in front of the words

corporation or partnership doesnt change the defintion of partnership or corporation, however placing the word business in

front of human being or individual looks rather silly doesn't it Arouet? A sole proprietorship is a type of business, not a

type of person, you need a business liscense to obtain a sole proprietorship, you do not need a business liscense to be a

human being/individual. I can see why you get so confused with corporate law.

Yes. Precisely. Figuring out whether a business is canadian owned or not is a pretty dry topic. Much of law

is pretty dry though.

If it is such a dry topic why am I interested in it then? Why does the viewcounter continue going up? Certainly that is only

your veiwpoint, and a dry one at that.

There was a crisis going on that affected the entire economy so it was geared towards helping everyone though

it also pitted rich people from one side of the country against rich people on the other side of the country. It is debatable

whether it acheived that goal or not. But again, you're thinking of a fictional version of the legislation. I agree if your

interpretation was correct it would be a very interesting piece of legislation indeed. Actaully, to many it was interesting

legislation as the national energy proram enraged many and there is still resentment about it today.

I don't see how severing ownership and control of all of your assets, investments and property helps everyone? Wouldn't the

beneficial owners be the ones benefitting? How are unknown beneficial owners of your property, assets and investments helping

everyone? Explain.

I've said fixated since this seems to be the only topic you want to discuss. And we did discuss it in detail.

I've asked you if you had any other topics you want to talk about but you haven't brought any up.

No you have not explained how the definition of business includes an individual, lot of talk, no explaining from you yet, why

not simply prove me wrong? Wouldn't that be so satisfying at this point Arouet? Just prove the man wrong. I'm waiting to be

proved wrong. Why not do it?

Well, I said a business is a person. But in a sole proprietorship indeed the person is the business.

No the business is the business, the person is the person, the person who owns the sole proprietorship pays the taxes but is

not defined as the business itself. The business is owned by the person, big difference there bud.

I haven't dodged you. Many types of businesses, such as a corporation, are legal persons. This is a pretty

non-controversial point. Corporate and Civil law are founded on it.

Yes you have but now this time you espouse that a sole proprietorship is an actual legal person. It is not.

As I said above: a business is a person. There is no provision of the act which excludes businesses from the

definition of legal person.

“person” means an individual, a corporation, a

partnership, a trust, a government, an agency of government, a segregated fund within the meaning of the regulations and an

organization that is prescribed as being a person or that falls into a class of organizations prescribed as being

persons;

Except the definition of person does not include a business in this act, too bad so sad for you that a sole proprietorship is

not a legal person and doesn't fall into a class of organizations prescribed as being persons, otherwise you would have alot

of an easier time convincing me hey bro?

So where in this act does it differentiate enforcement between an individual person and a fictional person regarding control

status and ownership?

Answer= It doesn't.

I'm afraid you simply don't understand how corporate trusts operate in canada arouet. Good luck in life sir!

[Arouet]

Honestly, I don't have anything left to say about this aspect. If you want to consider that a victory, then so be it.

Ok, let's give you the victory. Let's accept that this act establishes that the Canadian government can certify that it owns various human beings. Surely there must have been a whole host of human rights abuses that have come from this over the last 25 years or so. Maybe you could point to a few case studies for discussion.

[cecil1]

Honestly, I don't have anything left to say about this aspect. If you want to consider that a victory, then so be it.

Ok, let's give you the victory. Let's accept that this act establishes that the Canadian government can certify that it owns various human beings. Surely there must have been a whole host of human rights abuses that have come from this over the last 25 years or so. Maybe you could point to a few case studies for discussion.

Arouet this act alone does not enforce legal slavery it is used in conjunction with the trust and loans companies act 1991 to create the legal conundrum.

The trust holds all property, assets and investments in the corporate structure however that isn't an individual is it?

The clincher is sec 9 here: Trust and Loan Companies Act
S.C. 1991, c. 45
Assented to 1991-12-13

An Act to revise and amend the law governing federal trust and loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters

Acting in concert
9. (1) For the purposes of Part VII, if two or more persons have agreed, under any agreement, commitment or understanding, whether formal or informal, verbal or written, to act jointly or in concert in respect of

(a) shares of a company that they beneficially own,

(b) shares or ownership interests that they beneficially own of any entity that beneficially owns shares of a company, or

(c) shares or ownership interests that they beneficially own of any entity that controls any entity that beneficially owns shares of a company,

those persons shall be deemed to be a single person who is acquiring beneficial ownership of the aggregate number of shares of the company or shares or ownership interests of the entity that are beneficially owned by them.




(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), any agreement, commitment or understanding by or between two or more persons who beneficially own shares of a company or shares or ownership interests of any entity referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (c),

(a) whereby any of them or their nominees may veto any proposal put before the board of directors of the company, or

(b) pursuant to which no proposal put before the board of directors of the company may be approved except with the consent of any of them or their nominees,

shall be deemed to be an agreement, commitment or understanding referred to in subsection (1).

Marginal note:Exceptions
(3) For the purposes of this section, persons shall be presumed not to have agreed to act jointly or in concert solely by reason of the fact that

(a) one is the proxyholder of one or more of the others in respect of shares or ownership interests referred to in subsection (1); or

(b) they vote the voting rights attached to shares or ownership interests referred to in subsection (1) in the same manner.

Marginal note:Designation
(4) Where in the opinion of the Superintendent it is reasonable to conclude that an agreement, commitment or understanding referred to in subsections (1) and (2) exists by or among two or more persons, the Superintendent may designate those persons as persons who have agreed to act jointly or in concert.

Marginal note:Contravention
(5) A person contravenes a provision of Part VII if the person agrees to act jointly or in concert with one or more other persons in such a manner that a deemed single person contravenes the provision.

1991, c. 45, s. 9;2001, c. 9, s. 483;2007, c. 6, s. 337.


Now wasn't that easy to figure out?
English... not too hard is it?