View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 22 Jun 2012, 10:10

Arouet wrote:I have no idea what you are asking in this question. To know about the existence of a law you need to either see it yourself or be told by someone else. Knowing of the existence of a law and knowing what the words in the law are of course doesn't ensure understanding of that law. Understanding the law requires an understanding of legal principles or being educated by someone who does. Sometimes a law can't be fully understood until a court further defines it.


So what your saying is that canadian law is not written in english/french words so you can't answer how would someone know what the law is unless they've read it?

You make no sense so let me try again.

How would you be able to ascertain what the written words were in law unless you've read them yourself? Believing someone else is not the same as knowing. For someone trained in legal matters your having alot of difficulty understanding simple questions.

Arouet wrote:So who controls me, as a citizen of canada? What could they make me do?


Not you.

Trust and Loan Companies Act
S.C. 1991, c. 45
Assented to 1991-12-13

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html


Control
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act,
(d) a person controls an entity if the person has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the entity.

No acquisition of control without approval
375.1 (1) No person shall acquire control, within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(d), of a company without the approval of the Minister.

So not you Arouet unless of course... you have approval from the minister?


Arouet wrote:Well, at least we're not discussing the minutia of canadian protectonist legislation!


By protectionist you mean the protection of the unknown beneficial owners of your person?


Arouet wrote:Well, that's a step further towards practical - there would be a practical document that I signed over to you. But again, rather than ask question, why don't you provide answers. I asked whether you believe someone in the canadian government could exert powers over canadian citizens similar to, say, american slave owners exerted over black slaves pre-civil war? That's what I mean by practical.


Well the law provides for it to a certain extent. You have conceded that much. Seeing as canada follows the rule of "law" I don't see anything restricting them from following the law. Since you believe these acts allow for the enforcement of legal slavery what do you believe to be possible regarding control of owned person(s)?

I promise not to exert power of control over you and your assets, property or investments Arouet, why not sign it all over? It's not as if your practically abusing yourself nefariously, you believe it's merely conceptual, so what is stopping you?

Arouet wrote:Ok, but first let's figure out if we're talking about the same thing. That means you need to specify what kinds of powers these beneficial owners could exercise over the people of canada. Can you list off a couple? How does the slavery get exercised?


The federal trust is regulated by the trust and loans companies act for the umpteenth time sir. You are not good at memory.

Arouet wrote:perhaps instead of answering a question with a question, you could answer a question with an answer?


I apply this statement to you, when will you answer my unresolved questions instead of simply conseding the point?

Arouet wrote:No, that's not what's meant by due process there. They mean due process such as being read one's rights and having a fair trial before being incarcerated. But I'm interested in your opinion on whether a law that took away one's liberty and enslaved them would be unconstitutional under a constitution that specifically protected citizens liberty which includes not being enslaved. You might have missed that in my law post which is why you didn't address it.


Unless under due process, so what your saying is an act of parliament is not a due process of law? Amazing really. So we don't have to follow acts at all? How is securing a security of a person contradicting liberty? Please do explain i'm all ears.

Arouet wrote:I don't know what you mean by the second sentence, but yes, we do take away people's rights when they've committed crimes. That doesn't seem related to what we're talking about here.


Exactly, the word right(s) is a trap meant to draw in conflict.

Arouet wrote:Slavery in practice is much worse than slavery conceptually.


So the canadian ownership and control determination act is a concept? your simply amazing lol.

Arouet wrote:Still more questions for you to answer!


I don't understand what this sentence means.

Arouet wrote:I have no intention of doing anything about this act.


Why not? Do you agree with slavery?

Arouet wrote:Just to wait for your responses to my queries.


Already done sir, you miss alot.

Answer the question, do you agree with slavery? If not then why do nothing about this act? You must agree with slavery to let this slide correct?

Arouet wrote:No. But I assure you that if someone tried to exert authority over me as my master under this act, I would bring a motion to declare the act unconstitutional. I'm not terribly worried about it.


So what's stopping you from writing about this acts unconstitutionality? (Which you seem to be implying here but I don't see how it's unconstitutional, a monarchy can change a constitution all it wants, that's why it's the monarch.)

Arouet wrote:I'm trying to learn more about it from you. I can't learn more about it from anyone else since you haven't mentioned anyone else who has this same concern as you. So I'm stuck with you as my fountain of knowledge here.


Try reading the acts instead of gat5hering second hand information, come back to me and then we can discuss this further when you educate yourself on this topic... good day sir.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31






Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 22 Jun 2012, 20:22

Perhaps you don't really understand my questions, cecil? I'll try again:


cecil1 wrote:So what your saying is that canadian law is not written in english/french words so you can't answer how would someone know what the law is unless they've read it?


I thought I did answer: they would either have to read it themselves or have someone else tell them what it said. Are there other options?

You make no sense so let me try again.


Yes, please.

How would you be able to ascertain what the written words were in law unless you've read them yourself?


If you're asking how would one know the specific written words in an act they'd have to read it themselves or have someone read it to them. However, just reading the act is not going to be enough to understand it most of the time unless one has the background to know how to read it, understand the terms in it, etc. And often just reading the act is not enough to understand it. Sometimes there are multiple interpretations and a judge has to decide which one applies.

Believing someone else is not the same as knowing. For someone trained in legal matters your having alot of difficulty understanding simple questions.


Yes, I must have missed the believing vs. knowing class in law school!

Not you.

Trust and Loan Companies Act
S.C. 1991, c. 45
Assented to 1991-12-13

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html


Control
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act,
(d) a person controls an entity if the person has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the entity.

No acquisition of control without approval
375.1 (1) No person shall acquire control, within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(d), of a company without the approval of the Minister.

So not you Arouet unless of course... you have approval from the minister?


But can you please lay it out for me, as we've established that I am not an expert in corporate law and I'm depending on you for my instruction here. Can you construct a simple fact scenario to demonstrate for me how someone would apply this act in order to exercise their slave rights over me? And could you provide a few examples of what they could do to me with those slave rights? Please don't just quote the act - describe how it would work in practice.

By protectionist you mean the protection of the unknown beneficial owners of your person?


I meant that the act was part of the National Energy Policy - which was designed to protect the Canadian oil and gas industry. (I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you before - I thought I had specified that much earlier)

Well the law provides for it to a certain extent. You have conceded that much. Seeing as canada follows the rule of "law" I don't see anything restricting them from following the law. Since you believe these acts allow for the enforcement of legal slavery what do you believe to be possible regarding control of owned person(s)?


I have no idea - that's why I'm looking to you to explain it to me! I don't quite understand how legal slavery would be enforceable when the constitution specifically forbids it. You haven't told me how this legal slavery wouldn't violate the constitution?

I promise not to exert power of control over you and your assets, property or investments Arouet, why not sign it all over? It's not as if your practically abusing yourself nefariously, you believe it's merely conceptual, so what is stopping you?


I've already gone through this. Perhaps you could go back to my last post.

The federal trust is regulated by the trust and loans companies act for the umpteenth time sir. You are not good at memory.


You keep on just referring to laws - but laws don't mean much if they are not put into practice. I've asked you to describe how these laws have worked in practice. Can you do so?

I apply this statement to you, when will you answer my unresolved questions instead of simply conseding the point?


Which questions are unresolved?

Unless under due process, so what your saying is an act of parliament is not a due process of law? Amazing really. So we don't have to follow acts at all? How is securing a security of a person contradicting liberty? Please do explain i'm all ears.


Here is the wiki definition of due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.


Due process is what the government does before taking away one's liberty. It's not the legislation itself. So for example, the reading of one's rights during an arrest is part of the due process of law.

Exactly, the word right(s) is a trap meant to draw in conflict.


I have no idea what this means.

So the canadian ownership and control determination act is a concept? your simply amazing lol.


What you have described is that canadian citizens are owned by - well, you haven't said by whom - in principle. You haven't described how this ownership works in practice. So there very well may be practical aspects to this, but you haven't described any of them, you haven't given an example of it ever having happened, even once. So until you provide me with further knowledge, I'm left with only the concept.

I don't understand what this sentence means.


Yes, it meant that you had not answered all my questions. I hope its clear now.

Why not? Do you agree with slavery?


I don't feel that I sufficiently understand it yet. Perhaps I will after you answer my questions above.

Already done sir, you miss alot.


That may be true - but I'm sure if you address the above you'll have helped me catch up.

Answer the question, do you agree with slavery? If not then why do nothing about this act? You must agree with slavery to let this slide correct?


as I said - I need to fully understand it before I would act.

So what's stopping you from writing about this acts unconstitutionality? (Which you seem to be implying here but I don't see how it's unconstitutional, a monarchy can change a constitution all it wants, that's why it's the monarch.)


First, regarding the acts unconstitutionality - again, I need your help in describing the abuses. What would I answer when someone asks me: so can you give an example of this act in practice? I have no examples? So how would I convince someone this is a priority?

As for the monarch - is it your understanding that there is a monarch that can change Canada's constitution - or any of its laws - all it wants? I hadn't heard of this! Could you please elaborate?

Try reading the acts instead of gat5hering second hand information, come back to me and then we can discuss this further when you educate yourself on this topic... good day sir.


I've read the acts, but like I said - reading them doesn't always give a clear idea of how they work in practice. In this case, I look to you to enlighten me.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 23 Jun 2012, 03:58

Arouet wrote:I thought I did answer: they would either have to read it themselves or have someone else tell them what it said. Are there other options?


But if someone else told them what the law was it's up to them to trust the information or not, with reading it first hand you would know. I'm not saying ALL legislation is easy to read but it's not like it's an alien language.

Arouet wrote:If you're asking how would one know the specific written words in an act they'd have to read it themselves or have someone read it to them. However, just reading the act is not going to be enough to understand it most of the time unless one has the background to know how to read it, understand the terms in it, etc. And often just reading the act is not enough to understand it. Sometimes there are multiple interpretations and a judge has to decide which one applies.


So you agree me excellent, what was that other stuff you're saying?
The courts do what they want?
It always comes to a descision and it's not by the book? wow what a surprise as if I didn't already know this Arouet.

Arouet wrote:Yes, I must have missed the believing vs. knowing class in law school!


You're just jealous someone else knows how to read english. No need for sarcasm here my friend.

Arouet wrote:But can you please lay it out for me, as we've established that I am not an expert in corporate law and I'm depending on you for my instruction here. Can you construct a simple fact scenario to demonstrate for me how someone would apply this act in order to exercise their slave rights over me? And could you provide a few examples of what they could do to me with those slave rights? Please don't just quote the act - describe how it would work in practice.


Or you can read the acts where that's all spelled out. Please do not be lazy if you are genuinely interested in this subject which you've claimed is very dry then you will read them for yourself.

Arouet wrote:I meant that the act was part of the National Energy Policy - which was designed to protect the Canadian oil and gas industry. (I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you before - I thought I had specified that much earlier)


Perhaps that is a nice side effect with the legal slavery presented in it. Well done.
You are going back on your intellectual defeat so soon? Aha! The ego is perturbed!
Is that your retributive strike? Well done potter.

Arouet wrote:I have no idea - that's why I'm looking to you to explain it to me! I don't quite understand how legal slavery would be enforceable when the constitution specifically forbids it. You haven't told me how this legal slavery wouldn't violate the constitution?


So you are trying to gain some foothold in the conceded debate again my padawan?
The constitution protects the security of the person everyone has that right.
You have no idea because you refuse to educate yourself, read the acts.


cecil1 wrote:I promise not to exert power of control over you and your assets, property or investments Arouet, why not sign it all over? It's not as if your practically abusing yourself nefariously, you believe it's merely conceptual, so what is stopping you?


Arouet wrote:I've already gone through this. Perhaps you could go back to my last post.


No you pulled a menard and applied biased logic to the situation to fit your selfish needs.
A trust between me and you is practical yet a trust with the government is not, this is your faulty logic. There is no need to agonize over our trust as it is only conceptual and I won't apply control over you in anyway i'll only receive rights to beneficial ownership... that is what you deem conceptual so what is the problem here? let's sign! Don't let a mere concept scare you away!

Arouet wrote:Which questions are unresolved?


Perhaps go back and look?

Arouet wrote:Here is the wiki definition of due process:
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.


Exactly! Security of the person is a right what don't you get about that?
The canadian ownership and control determination act is all about that. Try reading it.

Arouet wrote:Due process is what the government does before taking away one's liberty. It's not the legislation itself. So for example, the reading of one's rights during an arrest is part of the due process of law.


So enforcing an act(s) that protects the rights of the security of the person is due process of law excellent.

Arouet wrote:I have no idea what this means.


You have never pondered on it. In order to have a right to something, something else must yield, it creates a condition, and that goes against true higher authority which is love (unconditional).
Something you know little to nothing about my friend. You've never been interested in these things how could you? This is not to put you down in anyway sir. Simply explaining.

Arouet wrote:What you have described is that canadian citizens are owned by - well, you haven't said by whom - in principle. You haven't described how this ownership works in practice. So there very well may be practical aspects to this, but you haven't described any of them, you haven't given an example of it ever having happened, even once. So until you provide me with further knowledge, I'm left with only the concept.


The acts are not concepts, read them. Quit trying to put it off on someone else, take some responsibility.

Arouet wrote:Yes, it meant that you had not answered all my questions. I hope its clear now.


Yes I have, everytime you ask a question that the acts could answer for you I direct you to the acts. You may not like it but I suspect that is only because you are being lazy.

Arouet wrote:I don't feel that I sufficiently understand it yet. Perhaps I will after you answer my questions above.


You don't think that you know slavery very well or you don't know the law very well? If you read the applicable acts you would know what the wordsa were in the law and for slavery you would have to grasp the concept of ownership. You have alot of work to do soldier.

Arouet wrote:That may be true - but I'm sure if you address the above you'll have helped me catch up.


The acts can address your queries with far more accuracy of wording, not to mention at your own leisure.

Arouet wrote:as I said - I need to fully understand it before I would act.


Well you didn't say but this is wise.

Arouet wrote:First, regarding the acts unconstitutionality - again, I need your help in describing the abuses. What would I answer when someone asks me: so can you give an example of this act in practice? I have no examples? So how would I convince someone this is a priority?

As for the monarch - is it your understanding that there is a monarch that can change Canada's constitution - or any of its laws - all it wants? I hadn't heard of this! Could you please elaborate?


If you think there is no example for practical abuse in the matters of ownership why not sign it all to me? Don't let a concept scare you away.

As for changing laws whenever it wants all it has to do is place a loophole in the law exactly as the ownership act does in conjuction with several others. When did the people vote for this trust law? Please elaborate.

Arouet wrote:I've read the acts, but like I said - reading them doesn't always give a clear idea of how they work in practice. In this case, I look to you to enlighten me.


I don't believe you. You didn't even know about controlling the trust. If you cannot understand the english language clearly I suggest you quit being a lawyer. The sections are clearly laid out. Yes it can be daunting but it's not as if the law is meant to confuse is it Arouet? Surely if you are as interested in this as you say you are then you'll enlighten yourself, you are a lawyer after all. Don't put yourself down too much.Good day sir.
Last edited by cecil1 on 23 Jun 2012, 05:20, edited 1 time in total.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 23 Jun 2012, 04:32

cecil1 wrote:But if someone else told them what the law was it's up to them to trust the information or not, with reading it first hand you would know. I'm not saying ALL legislation is easy to read but it's not like it's an alien language.


In a way it is written in an alien language. Ie: it looks like English but the words are often used in a particular way that is not common sense - such as the use of the word "person" which has a much different connotation in common English than it does in legislation. You really can't approach a piece of legislation and read it like a novel. You often need the right background to really understand it.

So you agree me excellent, what was that other stuff you're saying?
The courts do what they want?
It always comes to a descision and it's not by the book? wow what a surprise as if I didn't already know this Arouet.


I don't know what you are getting at here, but it is often the case that the courts have to clarify the meaning of legislation. The people who draft legislation often aren't very clear - which results in otherwise unnecessary legislation. Sometimes legislation gets interpreted in ways that the people who wrote it didn't intend- that's what sloppy writing gets you. You will often have lawyers arguing about completely different interpretations of the same legislation. The same words - very different intrepretations. this just serves to highlight that just reading the act isn't always enough to understand it.

You're just jealous someone else knows how to read english. No need for sarcasm here my friend.


I'm not jealous of other people who know how to read English (please note that I mean this sincerely with no sarcasm intended)

Or you can read the acts where that's all spelled out. Please do not be lazy if you are genuinely interested in this subject which you've claimed is very dry then you will read them for yourself.


But I've already said that I've read it and still can't figure out how it would work in practice. In my line of work, I can explain how the legislation works in practice ie: there are regulations with regard to how accident benefits in car accidents. I can describe to my clients how the proceedures work in real life, not just in the pages of the regulations. You keep on ducking explaining this to me. I've already admitted that I can't tell from reading the legislation - I'm being honest about this, I have no idea how it works in practice. Reading it 10 more times won't help me. So would you kindly explain how it works practically?

If you don't know, then you could just say so.

Perhaps that is a nice side effect with the legal slavery presented in it. Well done.
You are going back on your intellectual defeat so soon? Aha! The ego is perturbed!
Is that your retributive strike? Well done potter.


Well, there is no question that legislation was part of the National Energy Policy, you presented me with a government link saying exactly that. It was directly out of your own proferred link. Why did you give me that link if you disagree with it?

So you are trying to gain some foothold in the conceded debate again my padawan?
The constitution protects the security of the person everyone has that right.
You have no idea because you refuse to educate yourself, read the acts.


I don't know what you're saying. Perhaps you could tell me directly whether you think the legislation goes against the constitutional protection of liberty or not? Could you explain how a slave has any of the rights that are set out in the constitution? On my reading the constitution is entirely incompatible with the notion of slavery. Do you agree?

No you pulled a menard and applied biased logic to the situation to fit your selfish needs.
A trust between me and you is practical yet a trust with the government is not, this is your faulty logic. There is no need to agonize over our trust as it is only conceptual and I won't apply control over you in anyway i'll only receive rights to beneficial ownership... that is what you deem conceptual so what is the problem here? let's sign! Don't let a mere concept scare you away!


Again, I've explained what I meant by the difference between practical and conceptual. Was there something you didn't understand in my explanation? Why are you so reluctant to describe how canadian slavery works in practice?

Perhaps go back and look?


I have. From my reading I've answered all your questions. But you said I didn't so I'll defer to you to let me know which ones.

Exactly! Security of the person is a right what don't you get about that?
The canadian ownership and control determination act is all about that. Try reading it.


I agree that security of the person is a right. As is life and liberty. None of those rights seem compatible with slavery so I'm curious as to how you think the acts are contitutional.

So enforcing an act(s) that protects the rights of the security of the person is due process of law excellent.


Depending on what you are talking about the authorities would have to use due process in enforcing rights, yes.

You have never pondered on it. In order to have a right to something, something else must yield, it creates a condition, and that goes against true higher authority which is love (uncondiotional).
Something you know little to nothing about my friend. You've never been interested in these things how could you? This is not to put you down in anyway sir. Simply explaining.


Well, I have three children, so I'm pretty sure I know something about unconditional love. I don't know, however, what it has to do with the canadian government.

The acts are not concepts, read them. Quit trying to put it off on someone else, take some responsibility.


I've described what I mean by conceptual. This is really besides the point. There is a difference between the Act itself and the Act being carried out in practice - do you agree?

Yes I have, everytime you ask a question that the acts could answer for you I direct you to the acts. You may not like it but I suspect that is only because you are being lazy.


No, its because I want to know how the act works in practice. It's like you think you can really understand how a clock works in practice just by reading a manual on how to put a clock together. It is one thing to read about it, it is another to see it in action.

You don't think that you know slavery very well or you don't know the law very well? If you read the applicable acts you would know what the wordsa were in the law and for slavery you would have to grasp the concept of ownership. You have alot of work to do soldier.


How can reading the act more times increase understanding? I could read it 100 times and not see how it works in practice. But you have seen how it works in practice, right?

Or have you not?

Well you didn't say but this is wise.


So please help me understand and give an example of the act being acted out in practice.

As for changing laws whenever it wants all it has to do is place a loophole in the law exactly as the ownership act does in conjuction with several others. When did the people vote for this trust law? Please elaborate.


The people elected a legislature that enacted the laws. Why did you ignore my question about the monarch?

I don't believe you. You didn't even know about controlling the trust. If you cannot understand the english language clearly I suggest you quit being a lawyer. The sections are clearly laid out. Yes it can be daunting but it's not as if the law is meant to confuse is it Arouet? Surely if you are as interested in this as you say you are then you'll enlighten yourself, you are a lawyer after all. Don't put yourself down too much.Good day sir.


I'm started to get the idea that you have no idea how the act works in practice. Can you tell me if my intuition is correct?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 23 Jun 2012, 08:01

Arouet wrote:In a way it is written in an alien language. Ie: it looks like English but the words are often used in a particular way that is not common sense - such as the use of the word "person" which has a much different connotation in common English than it does in legislation. You really can't approach a piece of legislation and read it like a novel. You often need the right background to really understand it.


I think scientific words are more complex to read and pronounce than the english used in acts. Good thing your not a scientist eh Arouet? Just because your incapable of reading english doesn't mean everyone else is incapable of it either. Is the law written in english/french or not? If yes then fine, if no then what language is it written in?

Arouet wrote:I don't know what you are getting at here, but it is often the case that the courts have to clarify the meaning of legislation. The people who draft legislation often aren't very clear - which results in otherwise unnecessary legislation. Sometimes legislation gets interpreted in ways that the people who wrote it didn't intend- that's what sloppy writing gets you. You will often have lawyers arguing about completely different interpretations of the same legislation. The same words - very different intrepretations. this just serves to highlight that just reading the act isn't always enough to understand it.


How is this relevant? We can argue on the meaning of words all day, that is why we accept a common definition.

Arouet wrote:I'm not jealous of other people who know how to read English (please note that I mean this sincerely with no sarcasm intended)


Then why make a sarcastic quip about belief vs knowledge when it comes to reading words?

Arouet wrote:But I've already said that I've read it and still can't figure out how it would work in practice. In my line of work, I can explain how the legislation works in practice ie: there are regulations with regard to how accident benefits in car accidents. I can describe to my clients how the proceedures work in real life, not just in the pages of the regulations. You keep on ducking explaining this to me. I've already admitted that I can't tell from reading the legislation - I'm being honest about this, I have no idea how it works in practice. Reading it 10 more times won't help me. So would you kindly explain how it works practically?

If you don't know, then you could just say so.


The act actually spells out literally how the ownership and control works in practice, the shareholders are the ones with rights to beneficial interest, the trustees act as on the board of directors, that is the practice, there is a canadian ownership rate that accompanies the shareholders, it's further spelled out in the regulations. Please do not lie to me when you say you've read the act and then claim the act doesn't spell out what the practical applications for determining ownership and control determination are. That is what the act respects after all. Please do take care in your interactions and use honesty with me.
It is beyond obvious you are either lieing or are ignorant of the wording in the act(s).
Do educate yourself, thanks.

Arouet wrote:Well, there is no question that legislation was part of the National Energy Policy, you presented me with a government link saying exactly that. It was directly out of your own proferred link. Why did you give me that link if you disagree with it?


So you did read where it spells out individuals ownership rate?
That is the reason I presented the link, not to determine why the act was legislated.
You were disagreeing about wether the act affected individuals or not, you claimed it was concerning federally regulated companies, you lacked context, I gave it to you.

Arouet wrote:I don't know what you're saying. Perhaps you could tell me directly whether you think the legislation goes against the constitutional protection of liberty or not? Could you explain how a slave has any of the rights that are set out in the constitution? On my reading the constitution is entirely incompatible with the notion of slavery. Do you agree?


How does this act usurp the right to security of the person in the constitution?
If 2 rights are conflicted Arouet what next? If the law says you don't own anything and that security is gauranteed by the constitution what is the next step? Do go on with your thought here...

Arouet wrote:Again, I've explained what I meant by the difference between practical and conceptual. Was there something you didn't understand in my explanation? Why are you so reluctant to describe how canadian slavery works in practice?


No I disagree. What makes a trust between me and you practical but a trust between the government and you a concept? The canadian ownership and control determination act is not a concept, what don't you understand about that?[/quote]

Arouet wrote:I have. From my reading I've answered all your questions. But you said I didn't so I'll defer to you to let me know which ones.


No you refuse to answer where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 it differentiates between the categories of persons this act applies to besides non-eligible and not non-eligible persons. Answer this or is this the reason you conceded victory to me earlier?

Arouet wrote:I agree that security of the person is a right. As is life and liberty. None of those rights seem compatible with slavery so I'm curious as to how you think the acts are contitutional.


Don't forget the right to security of the person, as in securities of your person.

Arouet wrote:Depending on what you are talking about the authorities would have to use due process in enforcing rights, yes.


Due process being whatever the law spells out as due process yes, what is your point here?

Arouet wrote:I've described what I mean by conceptual. This is really besides the point. There is a difference between the Act itself and the Act being carried out in practice - do you agree?


Actually it's at the heart of the matter, you seem to think this is not the practical application for determining ownership and control determination in canada as if this was not a federal act. Dream on. This act is respecting ownership and control determination, the practical applications are inside, you should read it sometime to gain an understanding of how it is enforced, just like every other act.

Arouet wrote:No, its because I want to know how the act works in practice. It's like you think you can really understand how a clock works in practice just by reading a manual on how to put a clock together. It is one thing to read about it, it is another to see it in action.


The act spells out how it is practiced, and the regulations further spell it out, again you're being lazy. Here's how it works, what is your canadian ownership rate Arouet? When you can tell me why that is important then you know how this works in practice, you obtain a certificate, but of course the act tells us this, in plain english, with definitions provided, you are being lazy. Please excerise due dilligence when it comes to things you feign interest in.

Arouet wrote:How can reading the act more times increase understanding? I could read it 100 times and not see how it works in practice. But you have seen how it works in practice, right?

Or have you not?


That is a lie, the act spells out how the ownership and control determination is applied, practically. You have not read it or are deliberately attempting to lie in a public forum regarding this act. I have posted the relevant sections regarding this subject earlier in the thread, i'll simply assume you are lieing at this point. Willing to practice this concept with me? Sign it all away to me my friend, what's so scary about this concept? Let's put it to practice shall we? Or are you still going to lie and say this is not the practice according to law in canada regarding ownership and control determination?

Arouet wrote:So please help me understand and give an example of the act being acted out in practice.


So and so incorporates a federal trust company, registers the security as a political subdivision and requests consent via ownership regulation then applies for ownership and control status determination. But of course, this is all in the acts. If ownership of everything you own including yourself is merely a concept that is never put into practice what is scaring you from signing everything to me my friend? Why don't you do it?
You're not making any sense here can you please explain what the problem is with signing everything you own to me if it is merely conceptual and no practical application is forseen by you?

Arouet wrote:The people elected a legislature that enacted the laws. Why did you ignore my question about the monarch?


So parliament doesn't hold canada in trust for the crown/queen?

You see the problem here right Arouet? You simply don't have the background to read english.

Arouet wrote:I'm started to get the idea that you have no idea how the act works in practice. Can you tell me if my intuition is correct?


So you have no idea how to read english is what i'm getting out of this yet you seem to be able to concord sweeping linguistic replies in this thread, you amaze me with your hypocrisy sir.

I'll simply assume you are lieing and have not read the acts which explain everything you have asked or are deliberately being obtuse here as to pretend not to know how to read english on one forum(doj) yet on this forum you read english just fine, it's laughable sir.
Can you tell me if that makes sense?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 23 Jun 2012, 08:54

cecil1 wrote:I think scientific words are more complex to read and pronounce than the english used in acts. Good thing your not a scientist eh Arouet? Just because your incapable of reading english doesn't mean everyone else is incapable of it either. Is the law written in english/french or not? If yes then fine, if no then what language is it written in?


Science is another good example where there in a lingo that is specific to the field and a background in science is often required to truly understand it.

How is this relevant? We can argue on the meaning of words all day, that is why we accept a common definition.


The point is that legislation is often difficult to interpret. Just understanding english is often not enough.

Then why make a sarcastic quip about belief vs knowledge when it comes to reading words?


We were talking about legal interpretation and suddenly you made a philosophical quip about belief vs. knowledge. It had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. But if my sarcasm offended you I apologise.

The act actually spells out literally how the ownership and control works in practice, the shareholders are the ones with rights to beneficial interest, the trustees act as on the board of directors, that is the practice, there is a canadian ownership rate that accompanies the shareholders, it's further spelled out in the regulations. Please do not lie to me when you say you've read the act and then claim the act doesn't spell out what the practical applications for determining ownership and control determination are. That is what the act respects after all. Please do take care in your interactions and use honesty with me.
It is beyond obvious you are either lieing or are ignorant of the wording in the act(s).
Do educate yourself, thanks.


I've asked you for an example of the act applied in practice. Do you know of one or not?

So you did read where it spells out individuals ownership rate?
That is the reason I presented the link, not to determine why the act was legislated.
You were disagreeing about wether the act affected individuals or not, you claimed it was concerning federally regulated companies, you lacked context, I gave it to you.


I disagreed that the act applied to individual people, yes.

How does this act usurp the right to security of the person in the constitution?


Well first of all, if a slave owner confined their slave it would interfere with security of the person. But why are you only focusing on security of the person and ignored liberty - which is far more relevant to the issue of slavery?

If 2 rights are conflicted Arouet what next? If the law says you don't own anything and that security is gauranteed by the constitution what is the next step? Do go on with your thought here...


There is no right to property in the constitution but there is a right to security of the person. So security of the person would trump property rights in canada. Security of the person is not about ownership - here's the wiki definition:

In general, the right to the security of one's person is associated with liberty and includes the right, if one is imprisoned unlawfully, to the remedy of habeas corpus.[1] Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to security of person can guard against less lethal conduct, and can be used in regard to prisoners' rights.[2]


The focus is on imprisonment and prohibitions against beatings and torture, etc. The focus is on treatment of prisoners.

No I disagree. What makes a trust between me and you practical but a trust between the government and you a concept? The canadian ownership and control determination act is not a concept, what don't you understand about that?


If you can show me a practical application of the trust you are talking about I would say it is as practical as a trust agreement between me and you. As it stands, you have just mentioned the legislative framework. You haven't shown me a practical example.

Let's put it this way. There are laws setting out what must happen for one to sell a house. That is the conceptual framework. An agreement of purchase and sale, which follows the law would be the practical application of the law. I'm asking you to for an example of the practical applications of the acts you are talking about.

Here's another example, there are rules and regulations about accident benefits in a car accident. The practical application would be someone actually applying for accident benefits, the response by the insurance company, and subsequent litigation if necessary. The regulations are the conceptual framework, the going through the motions of applying, being accepted or rejected, and litigating are the carrying out of the conceptual framework.

I am asking you for an example of the practical carrying out of the conceptual framework, similar to the two examples above. Do you understand my meaning now?

No you refuse to answer where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 it differentiates between the categories of persons this act applies to besides non-eligible and not non-eligible persons. Answer this or is this the reason you conceded victory to me earlier?


Are you talking about the definition of person we've referred to more than once?

“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;


By the way - why do you think the certifcate is only valid for 12-24 months? Aren't all canadians always slaves under the act? Also, why would some people be rejected for a certificate? Does being rejected mean that one is not a slave? Should we hope to be rejected? Why do you think there is a provision about avoiding an unjust result? Do canadians asking for a certificate hope to be confirmed as slaves? What unjust result do you think they are referring to? Why do you think it refers to the governor in council's ability to declare a person to have a canadian ownership rate of 100%? Who owns us canadians when it's not 100% I'd appreciate you clarifying these issues for me.

Don't forget the right to security of the person, as in securities of your person.


So you seem to be agreeing that the act is unconstitutional, right?

Due process being whatever the law spells out as due process yes, what is your point here?


That due process applies to the steps taken to restrict one's liberty, not to the legislation itself. Legislation is not a process but can describe processes.

Actually it's at the heart of the matter, you seem to think this is not the practical application for determining ownership and control determination in canada as if this was not a federal act. Dream on. This act is respecting ownership and control determination, the practical applications are inside, you should read it sometime to gain an understanding of how it is enforced, just like every other act.


Do you consider there to be a difference between a piece of paper that contains and act, and people actually following the act in the real world?

The act spells out how it is practiced, and the regulations further spell it out, again you're being lazy. Here's how it works, what is your canadian ownership rate Arouet? When you can tell me why that is important then you know how this works in practice, you obtain a certificate, but of course the act tells us this, in plain english, with definitions provided, you are being lazy. Please excerise due dilligence when it comes to things you feign interest in.


We're going around in circles. Unless you specify otherwise I have no choice but to assume you have never heard of a single case of this certifcate being applied to an individual person. You can correct me if I'm wrong (but I bet you won't)

That is a lie, the act spells out how the ownership and control determination is applied, practically. You have not read it or are deliberately attempting to lie in a public forum regarding this act. I have posted the relevant sections regarding this subject earlier in the thread, i'll simply assume you are lieing at this point. Willing to practice this concept with me? Sign it all away to me my friend, what's so scary about this concept? Let's put it to practice shall we? Or are you still going to lie and say this is not the practice according to law in canada regarding ownership and control determination?


How can asking you for a practical example be a lie?

So and so incorporates a federal trust company, registers the security as a political subdivision and requests consent via ownership regulation then applies for ownership and control status determination. But of course, this is all in the acts. If ownership of everything you own including yourself is merely a concept that is never put into practice what is scaring you from signing everything to me my friend? Why don't you do it?


How is this demonstrating slavery? The federal trust company is not a human being, right? Yes there can be canadian ownership of a federal trust company and I agree that is what this act is for. But that's not at ALL what you've been talking about! That is not about ownership of oneself but ownership of a federal trust company!



So parliament doesn't hold canada in trust for the crown/queen?


No. The queen is the head of state for Canada. She is not the owner for Canada. Neither can she enact laws or make any modifications to Canadian law or its constitution. There was a time where the british parliament could in fact do so but the constitution was repatriated in 1982.

You see the problem here right Arouet? You simply don't have the background to read english.


I disagree. I do have the background to read English.

So you have no idea how to read english is what i'm getting out of this yet you seem to be able to concord sweeping linguistic replies in this thread, you amaze me with your hypocrisy sir.


Actually, I take back my previous accusation. Above you showed that you do understand basically what the act is for. However, your example had nothing to do with your claim about legal slavery.

I'll simply assume you are lieing and have not read the acts which explain everything you have asked or are deliberately being obtuse here as to pretend not to know how to read english on one forum(doj) yet on this forum you read english just fine, it's laughable sir.
Can you tell me if that makes sense?


Yes, it makes sense. But I'll correct your assumption that I'm lying. I'm not lying. Neither am I pretending not to know english. I agree that I read english just fine.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 25 Jun 2012, 03:21

Arouet wrote:Science is another good example where there in a lingo that is specific to the field andbackground in science is often required to truly understand it.


Exactly, the whole reason there is law is to enforce the embodiment of love in situations that lack love. You simply don't have the background to understand this sort of thing. That is not meant to be an insult it's not like you cannot learn, it's just unknown to you at this point. That is why you (and many others, you're not alone here sir) require written words to inteprete because you do not have an understanding of love which is universal law and requires no wording to enforce. Lack of background indeed.


Arouet wrote:The point is that legislation is often difficult to interpret. Just understanding english is often not enough.


I've shown you what else you lack to truly understand law, you simply don't have the background to understand this sort of thing so are stuck in the words interpreting them, I can see why you have such difficulties with this subject as your background is lacking here.

Arouet wrote:We were talking about legal interpretation and suddenly you made a philosophical quip about belief vs. knowledge. It had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. But if my sarcasm offended you I apologise.


Philosophy has practical applications especially when deciphering the difference between a belief and knowledge, you espout belief in a subject, I espout knowledge of a subject, your way is based in faith and my way in based in wisdom. Honestly to be frank your way relies on trust and I don't trust people like you. I prefer to read the material first hand and avoid the untruths from supposedly learned men like you that are secretly as confused as the rest of the masses. So not trusting you to read material for me has everything to do with belief vs knowledge in legal intepretation. Sorry if that strikes your ego as hard but the possibility that you have it wrong does exist. Your sarcasm was an indication of your egos reaction to the perceived attack.

Arouet wrote:I've asked you for an example of the act applied in practice. Do you know of one or not?


I think I see what you're getting at here, ownership in itself is a concept, but the police that enforce the ownership laws are not a concept, if you don't think ownership is enforced in canada then by all means sign everything you own to me and let's write it off to a conceptual matter shall we? Can you see this having a practical application Arouet or will you sign everything to me? Come now according to you, there must be no practical application for the concept of ownership correct? Please do correct me if you think i'm mistaken here.

Arouet wrote:I disagreed that the act applied to individual people, yes.


But then went on to say this act is all about individuals applying.
Then admitted a defeat by declaring me the victor as if this was a battle or something.
Then went on to ask if there is an example of conceptual ownership being enforced as practical.
Then you went on as if there is something about law requiring a background (I assume you meant university) that I can only assume opens the third eye allowing mystical powers to enter the mind and reveal the secret decoding behind english words written as law, thank goodness the government is really aliens, otherwise they wouldn't be able to read their alien-english laws...it is possible after all.

Arouet wrote:Well first of all, if a slave owner confined their slave it would interfere with security of the person. But why are you only focusing on security of the person and ignored liberty - which is far more relevant to the issue of slavery?


A wide open plantation with comfy homes and institutions is still a plantation.
Slavery has nothing to do with confining, that is imprisonment you speak of.
Slavery has to do with the concept of ownership where someone else proclaims to have a higher claim on your life than you do. The ownership does not have to be acted on but it can be according to law. Signing everything you own to me is not confining you, why not do it?

Arouet wrote:There is no right to property in the constitution but there is a right to security of the person. So security of the person would trump property rights in canada. Security of the person is not about ownership - here's the wiki definition:


Exactly so if someone has a security of someone else's person that security would be gauranteed by law correct? In fact by the constitution? Security is actually an integral part of ownership, in fact there's whole sections on securities in the trust and loans companies act (for example), see that is why I don't believe you when you say you've read these acts.
Because you haven't.

Here is an example;

Trust and Loan Companies Act
S.C. 1991, c. 45

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html


“security” or “security certificate” means an instrument issued by a company that is

(a) in bearer, order or registered form,

(b) of a type commonly dealt in on securities exchanges or markets or commonly recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment,

(c) one of a class or series or by its terms divisible into a class or series of instruments, and

(d) evidence of a share, participation or other interest in or obligation of a company,

Security a negotiable instrument
86. (1) A security is a negotiable instrument but, in the case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act and this Act, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

Wow look at that a security is evidence of a share!!!!!
We know shares are the interest or rights to income or property in a corporation don't we Arouet? So unless the constitution defines security and person in the act we must go on the legal definitions and not the common public sense of the words as you are so fond of saying, unless of course the constitution is not a legal document??? What next Arouet?

Arouet wrote:The focus is on imprisonment and prohibitions against beatings and torture, etc. The focus is on treatment of prisoners.


Really where does the constitution say that? All that in security of the person which could be construed as ownership of a natural or fictional person according to legal definitions?

Arouet wrote:If you can show me a practical application of the trust you are talking about I would say it is as practical as a trust agreement between me and you. As it stands, you have just mentioned the legislative framework. You haven't shown me a practical example.


What differentiates a trust between me and you, and the government and you, making one a concept and the other reality? In your mind what is the difference? Are you saying the acts have no legal force? I don't get your angle of attack here.

Arouet wrote:Let's put it this way. There are laws setting out what must happen for one to sell a house. That is the conceptual framework. An agreement of purchase and sale, which follows the law would be the practical application of the law. I'm asking you to for an example of the practical applications of the acts you are talking about.


So your asking how to apply for ownership of your person? The act tells you how to do it with the regulations. What don't you understand about that? This isn't hard... read the act, if you cannot understand the acts then I suggest you quit being a lawyer, honestly do us all a favor friend and simply quit.

Arouet wrote:Here's another example, there are rules and regulations about accident benefits in a car accident. The practical application would be someone actually applying for accident benefits, the response by the insurance company, and subsequent litigation if necessary. The regulations are the conceptual framework, the going through the motions of applying, being accepted or rejected, and litigating are the carrying out of the conceptual framework.

I am asking you for an example of the practical carrying out of the conceptual framework, similar to the two examples above. Do you understand my meaning now?


Yes and I gave it to you earlier, incorporate a trust company according to the trust and loans comapanies act, register the security as a political subdivision then apply for consent of the owner to buy and apply for a certificate, why are you having such difficulty with this framework? I told you the acts to read, why don't you do it Arouet? Laziness is not a virtue. You can read this information anytime it's on public viewing on the department of justice website lawslois. Holding your hand is nearly at it's end I suggest you begin to start educating yourself. The law sets out the conceptual framework for going through the practical applications for ownership of your person. I think your position here is that you do not want to understand this conceptual framework laid out in the acts or attempt to misdirect people with disinfo. Do you understand my meaning now?

Arouet wrote:Are you talking about the definition of person we've referred to more than once?


Yes will you answer the question?

where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 does it differentiate between the categories of persons this act applies to besides non-eligible and not non-eligible persons?

Arouet wrote:By the way - why do you think the certifcate is only valid for 12-24 months? Aren't all canadians always slaves under the act?


What do you think happens if you don't have a certificate then? Is reapplying for a certificate some sort of taboo regarding ownership? What are your thoughts on this and where is the relevance?

Arouet wrote:Also, why would some people be rejected for a certificate?


Probably because they didn't meet the standards of protocol in the practical application for the conceptual framework.

Arouet wrote:Does being rejected mean that one is not a slave?


There could be many reasons why the application is rejected but I would reason the answer lies in the words canadian controlled, non-eligible and prescribed protocol.

Arouet wrote:Should we hope to be rejected?


Should we hope you read the section regarding control status?

Arouet wrote:Why do you think there is a provision about avoiding an unjust result?


Wouldn't want to get the ownership rate and control status wrong would we?

Arouet wrote:Do canadians asking for a certificate hope to be confirmed as slaves?


I would assume hoping to be recognized as the beneficial owners of their persons.
But if your gung ho to be a slave then by all means go for it, hope away.


Arouet wrote:What unjust result do you think they are referring to?


If I own 30% of shares in a corporation don't you think it's unjust someone else owns 71%?
Not sure where you're going with this, you think there's some morality in holding not non-eligible persons in a federal corporate trust? Perhaps in a certain context you could be right but overall the moral boundry was crossed with the evidentiary privilege sec 19. non-disclosure. If this is so up front why is this evidentiary privilege Arouet?

Arouet wrote:Why do you think it refers to the governor in council's ability to declare a person to have a canadian ownership rate of 100%? Who owns us canadians when it's not 100% I'd appreciate you clarifying these issues for me.


Idem
(2) The Minister may communicate, disclose or make available the names, Canadian ownership rates and control status of persons to whom certificates have been issued.
R.S., 1985, c. C-20, s. 18;1991, c. 47, s. 712.

If no certificate is issued Arouet who do you think owns you?
Don't you think you should know these sorts of things?

Evidentiary privilege
19. Notwithstanding any other Act or law, no person who obtains information or documentation under this Act shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or criminal proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under this Act or to produce any statement, document, writing or portion thereof containing any of that information or documentation.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 51

Arouet wrote:So you seem to be agreeing that the act is unconstitutional, right?


I'm more to the mind that there are 2 conflicting rights in the constitution. You seem to hold the opinion that the constitution is the paragon of morality. The constitution is not the paragon of morality Arouet, knowledge of love is. Unless you can find something higher than that? I invite you to try.

Arouet wrote:That due process applies to the steps taken to restrict one's liberty, not to the legislation itself. Legislation is not a process but can describe processes.


And the steps taken are to be found where? In the legislation? Are you saying anyone who is deemed to be canadian controlled would have to follow the acts of canada? Amazing!

Arouet wrote:Do you consider there to be a difference between a piece of paper that contains and act, and people actually following the act in the real world?


You don't seem to think so, that's why you argue that a federal corporate trust enforced by law is only a concept right? Since you don't seem to think an act has any force in canada why not just sign everything to me? What's the problem with that again? It's only a concept right?

Arouet wrote:We're going around in circles. Unless you specify otherwise I have no choice but to assume you have never heard of a single case of this certifcate being applied to an individual person. You can correct me if I'm wrong (but I bet you won't)


That's right you are going around in circles, let me try again from another angle.
How should I know who has applied and who has not applied for a certificate under this act?
I didn't realize the minister had to inform me of all certificates being issued to individuals. What section is that in Arouet I didn't see that section but you can correct me if i'm wrong.(but i bet you won't.)

Arouet wrote:How can asking you for a practical example be a lie?


When you stated you have read the act multiple times but then ask where in the act (It even says the regulations, you know the prescribed method of applying?) it outlines the practical application required for the conceptual framework. I mean seriously? If you weren't lieing then you're one of those people I say to: ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You fit that bill well.

Arouet wrote:How is this demonstrating slavery?


If you don't own yourself Arouet and someone else does.. what is that called?

Arouet wrote:The federal trust company is not a human being, right?


Is a trust a person according to this act?
The federal trust corp/company is acting in concert with the individual. But I've already shown you sec.9 trust and loans companies act. Multiple persons are to be deemed acting as a single person. So the individual is deemed to be one with the fed corp trust. A corporate trust/individual that is owned by a shareholder, but you would know this if you studied what I told you. You have obviously not.


Arouet wrote:Yes there can be canadian ownership of a federal trust company and I agree that is what this act is for. But that's not at ALL what you've been talking about! That is not about ownership of oneself but ownership of a federal trust company!


So you retract your defeat and wish to take another piss with me?

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.

What is part 7 all about Arouet?

PART VII
OWNERSHIP
Division I
Interpretation

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-57

Yup a trust company is not a human being Arouet... but the law disagrees with you, why is that?

Arouet wrote:No. The queen is the head of state for Canada. She is not the owner for Canada. Neither can she enact laws or make any modifications to Canadian law or its constitution. There was a time where the british parliament could in fact do so but the constitution was repatriated in 1982.


Yes parliament holds canada in trust for the crown, you prove my point with your comment. you seem to think trust indicates ownership... why is that Arouet? Freudian slip? ;)

When you say the queen is not the owner of canada do you meanthe legal owner/trustee or the equitable owner(shareholder)? Which one?

Arouet wrote:I disagree. I do have the background to read English.


And what background does reading english require?

Arouet wrote:Actually, I take back my previous accusation. Above you showed that you do understand basically what the act is for. However, your example had nothing to do with your claim about legal slavery.


This is absolutely irrelevant and unrelated to my previous comment, do stay on track please.
The law is written in english/french. It really really is, I promise.

Arouet wrote:Yes, it makes sense. But I'll correct your assumption that I'm lying. I'm not lying. Neither am I pretending not to know english. I agree that I read english just fine.


So what you're saying is that you have no problem reading english on this forum but have difficulty reading english on another forum such as the doj website?

What's the difficulty? Do you need help S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G?

P.S. sorry for the late reply, argueing law isn't my life like yours, how am I so much better at it than you Arouet?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 25 Jun 2012, 04:28

cecil1 wrote:Exactly, the whole reason there is law is to enforce the embodiment of love in situations that lack love. You simply don't have the background to understand this sort of thing. That is not meant to be an insult it's not like you cannot learn, it's just unknown to you at this point. That is why you (and many others, you're not alone here sir) require written words to inteprete because you do not have an understanding of love which is universal law and requires no wording to enforce. Lack of background indeed.


Think we're starting to jump the shark here (if it wasn't jumped from the very beginning that is)

Philosophy has practical applications especially when deciphering the difference between a belief and knowledge, you espout belief in a subject, I espout knowledge of a subject, your way is based in faith and my way in based in wisdom. Honestly to be frank your way relies on trust and I don't trust people like you. I prefer to read the material first hand and avoid the untruths from supposedly learned men like you that are secretly as confused as the rest of the masses. So not trusting you to read material for me has everything to do with belief vs knowledge in legal intepretation. Sorry if that strikes your ego as hard but the possibility that you have it wrong does exist. Your sarcasm was an indication of your egos reaction to the perceived attack.


I've stated explicitly that I could be wrong about some of the specifics - I'm happy to be corrected. In fact, provided the practical examples I asked for would do the trick nicely. The practical example you gave was in line with my basic understanding of the act. But your example had nothing to do with slavery.

I think I see what you're getting at here, ownership in itself is a concept, but the police that enforce the ownership laws are not a concept, if you don't think ownership is enforced in canada then by all means sign everything you own to me and let's write it off to a conceptual matter shall we? Can you see this having a practical application Arouet or will you sign everything to me? Come now according to you, there must be no practical application for the concept of ownership correct? Please do correct me if you think i'm mistaken here.


You're getting closer to understanding what I was getting at. Rules of ownership are conceptual. The practical that I'm referring to here would be the actual steps one took to own something. Sure that ownership is conceptual, but all I mean by practical is the actual steps taken. So a corporation is conceptual. But the practical I'd be looking for would be the actual steps in setting up the corporation, the actual people involved, etc. Not just the written rule. So yes, police actually going out and arresting someone for theft would be the practical application of the law prohibiting stealing.

And yes, me signing over everything I have to you would be practical in the way I mean it here. It would be a practical example of the concept of gifting one's property to someone else.

In that same way I'm asking for an example of slavery in action based on Canadian law.

But then went on to say this act is all about individuals applying.


Well yes. An individual can apply for the certificate. I didn't realise that's what you were talking about. But they are not applying for a certificate as to their own canadian ownership, right?

Then admitted a defeat by declaring me the victor as if this was a battle or something.
Then went on to ask if there is an example of conceptual ownership being enforced as practical.
Then you went on as if there is something about law requiring a background (I assume you meant university) that I can only assume opens the third eye allowing mystical powers to enter the mind and reveal the secret decoding behind english words written as law, thank goodness the government is really aliens, otherwise they wouldn't be able to read their alien-english laws...it is possible after all.


No, you wouldn't necessarily need a university law degree but you'd have to spend enough time studying such concepts. The thing is, in your practical example you showed you did understand the act. However, for some reason it had nothing to do with slavery or ownership of an individual. Why is that?

Slavery has to do with the concept of ownership where someone else proclaims to have a higher claim on your life than you do.


Great, so show me an example of it having happened.

Exactly so if someone has a security of someone else's person that security would be gauranteed by law correct? In fact by the constitution? Security is actually an integral part of ownership, in fact there's whole sections on securities in the trust and loans companies act (for example), see that is why I don't believe you when you say you've read these acts.


You seem to be confusing the term "security of the person" with the financial instrument called a "security". I can see where you might get confused since they use the same word but they actually have different meanings. You can consult the wikis on the two terms to help you distinguish between them.

Arouet wrote:Really where does the constitution say that? All that in security of the person which could be construed as ownership of a natural or fictional person according to legal definitions?


No. It's a legal term of art that has a particular meaning. Again: you should look up the terms. Ownership rights are actually not protected in the canadian constitution as opposed to the american one where they are.

What differentiates a trust between me and you, and the government and you, making one a concept and the other reality? In your mind what is the difference? Are you saying the acts have no legal force? I don't get your angle of attack here.


I have no angle of attack I've simply asked for you to show the slavery in action.

So your asking how to apply for ownership of your person? The act tells you how to do it with the regulations. What don't you understand about that? This isn't hard... read the act, if you cannot understand the acts then I suggest you quit being a lawyer, honestly do us all a favor friend and simply quit.


With any act that I deal with I can describe a practical example of it being carried out. You seem to be incapable of doing the same.

Yes and I gave it to you earlier, incorporate a trust company according to the trust and loans comapanies act, register the security as a political subdivision then apply for consent of the owner to buy and apply for a certificate, why are you having such difficulty with this framework? I told you the acts to read, why don't you do it Arouet?


I acknowledged your example - can you point out for me where it involves slavery? You seem to be talking about ownership of a trust company.

Laziness is not a virtue. You can read this information anytime it's on public viewing on the department of justice website lawslois. Holding your hand is nearly at it's end I suggest you begin to start educating yourself. The law sets out the conceptual framework for going through the practical applications for ownership of your person. I think your position here is that you do not want to understand this conceptual framework laid out in the acts or attempt to misdirect people with disinfo. Do you understand my meaning now?


The only conclusion I can come to from your example is that it has nothing to do with slavery.

Yes will you answer the question?

where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 does it differentiate between the categories of persons this act applies to besides non-eligible and not non-eligible persons?


There is a definitions section that defines person. I'm not sure what your question is.

What do you think happens if you don't have a certificate then? Is reapplying for a certificate some sort of taboo regarding ownership? What are your thoughts on this and where is the relevance?


If all canadians are slaves, why is a certificate necessary? Seems rather redundant doesn't it?

Probably because they didn't meet the standards of protocol in the practical application for the conceptual framework.


Can you give an example of this?

Wouldn't want to get the ownership rate and control status wrong would we?


So are some canadian citizens only partly owned?

I would assume hoping to be recognized as the beneficial owners of their persons.
But if your gung ho to be a slave then by all means go for it, hope away.


So only some canadians are slaves?

If I own 30% of shares in a corporation don't you think it's unjust someone else owns 71%?


We're talking about ownership of a person, though.

If no certificate is issued Arouet who do you think owns you?


Well before this I didn't think people had owners. So perhaps you could tell me.

Don't you think you should know these sorts of things?


Perhaps - but I need your help.

Evidentiary privilege
19. Notwithstanding any other Act or law, no person who obtains information or documentation under this Act shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or criminal proceedings under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under this Act or to produce any statement, document, writing or portion thereof containing any of that information or documentation.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 51


How do you interpret this provision?

I'm more to the mind that there are 2 conflicting rights in the constitution. You seem to hold the opinion that the constitution is the paragon of morality. The constitution is not the paragon of morality Arouet, knowledge of love is. Unless you can find something higher than that? I invite you to try.


I don't think I wrote that the contitution is a paragon of morality (though it does pretty well I think). It does, however, provide the framework for law making. Unfortunately our courts don't recognize the primacy of love.

You don't seem to think so, that's why you argue that a federal corporate trust enforced by law is only a concept right? Since you don't seem to think an act has any force in canada why not just sign everything to me? What's the problem with that again? It's only a concept right?


I've addressed this above.

That's right you are going around in circles, let me try again from another angle.
How should I know who has applied and who has not applied for a certificate under this act?
I didn't realize the minister had to inform me of all certificates being issued to individuals. What section is that in Arouet I didn't see that section but you can correct me if i'm wrong.(but i bet you won't.)


I'm not asking you for every example. I'm asking you for a single example.

When you stated you have read the act multiple times but then ask where in the act (It even says the regulations, you know the prescribed method of applying?) it outlines the practical application required for the conceptual framework. I mean seriously? If you weren't lieing then you're one of those people I say to: ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You fit that bill well.


Hopefully now you understand what I mean by practical example.

If you don't own yourself Arouet and someone else does.. what is that called?


But you only talked about a trust company. Not an individual.

Is a trust a person according to this act?


The trust is not a human being, right?

The federal trust corp/company is acting in concert with the individual. But I've already shown you sec.9 trust and loans companies act. Multiple persons are to be deemed acting as a single person. So the individual is deemed to be one with the fed corp trust. A corporate trust/individual that is owned by a shareholder, but you would know this if you studied what I told you. You have obviously not.


That deeming provision only applies in specific circumstances. Not generally.

So you retract your defeat and wish to take another piss with me?


I'm just trying to get more information from you, but you seem to have acknoweldged that you've never heard of an actual case of an individual human being being declared canadian owned. so I'm beginning to fear you can't help me.

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.


See how it only applies in certain circumstances?

What is part 7 all about Arouet?

PART VII
OWNERSHIP
Division I
Interpretation

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-57

Yup a trust company is not a human being Arouet... but the law disagrees with you, why is that?


Can you be more specific?

Yes parliament holds canada in trust for the crown, you prove my point with your comment. you seem to think trust indicates ownership... why is that Arouet? Freudian slip? ;)


No. Parliament does not hold canada in trust for the crown.

When you say the queen is not the owner of canada do you meanthe legal owner/trustee or the equitable owner(shareholder)? Which one?


I mean she's in no way the owner of canada.

And what background does reading english require?


I can read English at the university level.

So what you're saying is that you have no problem reading english on this forum but have difficulty reading english on another forum such as the doj website?


Understanding the English on this forum is far easier than the english in the statutes on the DOJ website.

What's the difficulty? Do you need help S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G?


Not since the invention of spellcheck I haven't!

P.S. sorry for the late reply, argueing law isn't my life like yours, how am I so much better at it than you Arouet?


I do appreciate your time, which I know is quite valuable.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 27 Jun 2012, 09:05

Arouet wrote:Think we're starting to jump the shark here (if it wasn't jumped from the very beginning that is)


I think that was you who started jumping the shark(?) from the very beginning, as if you actually knew what law is, let me assure you that you don't have the foggiest clue. Your lack of understanding only proves my point. Arouet, you simply don't have the background to truly understand law.

Arouet wrote:I've stated explicitly that I could be wrong about some of the specifics - I'm happy to be corrected. In fact, provided the practical examples I asked for would do the trick nicely. The practical example you gave was in line with my basic understanding of the act. But your example had nothing to do with slavery.


The practical examples given outlined how to get out of slavery according to legal procedures. That is hardly nothing to do with slavery, try again.

Arouet wrote:You're getting closer to understanding what I was getting at. Rules of ownership are conceptual. The practical that I'm referring to here would be the actual steps one took to own something. Sure that ownership is conceptual, but all I mean by practical is the actual steps taken. So a corporation is conceptual. But the practical I'd be looking for would be the actual steps in setting up the corporation, the actual people involved, etc. Not just the written rule. So yes, police actually going out and arresting someone for theft would be the practical application of the law prohibiting stealing.

And yes, me signing over everything I have to you would be practical in the way I mean it here. It would be a practical example of the concept of gifting one's property to someone else.

In that same way I'm asking for an example of slavery in action based on Canadian law.


No signing everything you own to me would be conceptual according to you. How is it not?
If you are not the owner of yourself that is slavery, not sure how you can miss that. Most likely you are doing it on purpose, that is quite sad.

The example in canadian law in action is owning you and placing you on the board of directors as the trustee who cannot even control the trust without approval from the minister, making you canadian controlled and guilty under any act of the society of canada that you contravened... but you would know this if you read the acts wouldn't you?

If legislation deems you to be canadian controlled then the society of canada has to follow that legislation which is of course a rule of society given the force of law. So much for common-law eh Arouet. So in the same way i'm asking you how you differentiate a trust between me and you as practical and between you and the government as non-practical? What you are suggesting makes no sense, do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks sir.

Arouet wrote:Well yes. An individual can apply for the certificate. I didn't realise that's what you were talking about. But they are not applying for a certificate as to their own canadian ownership, right?


Seeing as multiple persons are deemed to be single persons in the matters of ownership I will have to disagree with you and your horribad misinfo/disinfo. So sorry.

Arouet wrote:No, you wouldn't necessarily need a university law degree but you'd have to spend enough time studying such concepts. The thing is, in your practical example you showed you did understand the act. However, for some reason it had nothing to do with slavery or ownership of an individual. Why is that?


I most surely did. Your lack of understanding does not mean the information was wrong, it simply means you are wrong. What is it called when somebody else owns you Arouet? Can you get this one question right? I doubt it. Surprise me sir?

Arouet wrote:Great, so show me an example of it having happened.


You are not familier with registering securities? Gee what a surpise. That's how it happens according to canadian law.

Arouet wrote:You seem to be confusing the term "security of the person" with the financial instrument called a "security". I can see where you might get confused since they use the same word but they actually have different meanings. You can consult the wikis on the two terms to help you distinguish between them.


You seem to confuse a legal document with a common piece of paper, you may think the common usage of a word applies to legal documents but a quick search in the interpretation act shows us that:

“security” means sufficient security, and “sureties” means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required;

“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-30

Sit down Arouet your making a fool of yourself here.

Arouet wrote:No. It's a legal term of art that has a particular meaning. Again: you should look up the terms. Ownership rights are actually not protected in the canadian constitution as opposed to the american one where they are.


Yes they are look again. The only art form here is your lies.

Arouet wrote:I have no angle of attack I've simply asked for you to show the slavery in action.


If you own your own goods why would you have to pay tax on them or be coerced to be pushed out of your own house or even worse put into jail? How come a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court of canada? How come a body corporate incorporated according to the trust and loans companies act 1991 is considered a political subdivision which is considered a foreign state? How come the minister may deem someone who is not non-eligible to apply for their canadian ownership rate to be not canadian controlled(trust company)? Could this be the piece you're missing even though it was given in many times over on multiple forums that I happen to know you troll? This is not new info.

Just for fun, how would a shareholder employ voting rights over the trust? Would that not be at the shareholder(s) meeting? The control is done via voting rights and through being considered canadian controlled. Are you understanding any of this? This is all outlined section by section, in english, in the very acts I mentioned earlier but of course your job here is to misconstrue everything into garblefak.

Arouet wrote:With any act that I deal with I can describe a practical example of it being carried out. You seem to be incapable of doing the same.


You seem to be incapable of comprehending the answers given, this is not a surprise as you are seemingly being intentionally obtuse here. The correct answers have been given time and time again, seeing as you have no problem with being owned by the government and being canadian controlled why not sign everything to me? What is the issue here? Surely you have no practical reason not to have me as your beneficial owner, especially when I am allowing you to control the trust as trustee, that is even more than canada allows without approval from the minister so what is the problem exactly here? How am I not being beyond generous? Explain yourself.

Arouet wrote:I acknowledged your example - can you point out for me where it involves slavery? You seem to be talking about ownership of a trust company.


Already have, the seperate trust that exists for the greater certainty is deemed to be acting in concert with the individual, construeing multiple persons as a single person, that single person is owned by a shareholder. Can you point out how this is not slavery?

Arouet wrote:The only conclusion I can come to from your example is that it has nothing to do with slavery.


So obtaining ownership of your person haas nothing to do with slavery?
Trolol. GOOD ONE! Oh man my sides hurt from laughing.

Arouet wrote:There is a definitions section that defines person. I'm not sure what your question is.


The definition of person in this act does not differentiate between the categories of persons this act applies to does it? :(

will you answer the question?

where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 does it differentiate between the categories of persons this act applies to besides non-eligible and not non-eligible persons?

Arouet wrote:If all canadians are slaves, why is a certificate necessary? Seems rather redundant doesn't it?


If all certificates have the canadian ownership rate and control status listed, wouldn't you want one of these to prove to canada you own and control yourself?
What is redundant here is your lack of comprehension skills =/

Arouet wrote:Can you give an example of this?


The acts can.
Can you read a section of any of these acts and make a point with a section like I have?
Surely if i'm wrong( please prove me wrong why can't you do it?) you could easily take a section from one of these acts and show how i'm using it wrong? Go for it Arouet prove me wrong!

Arouet wrote:So are some canadian citizens only partly owned?


The COACDA 1985 regulations have that answer for you, post the section in the regulations for us all to see and prove me wrong.

Arouet wrote:So only some canadians are slaves?


So you have not read the relevant acts where this is explained in detail?

Arouet wrote:We're talking about ownership of a person, though.


Ummmm... a corporation is defined as a person by law, so is individual, in fact the law says both are a single person in certain situations doesn't it Arouet? Can you find where I linked that bit of info in my previous post on this thread or where you not paying attention here? Quote the paragraph in this thread where I posted the info with the source link to the doj and prove to us all your not wasting our time.

Arouet wrote:Well before this I didn't think people had owners. So perhaps you could tell me.


No I can't because the law doesn't allow that, but you should know these things shouldn't you Arouet I mean you are a lawyer after all aren't you? If you are then you are by far the worst lawyer on the planet please do everyone a favor and simply quit.

Seizure of security
127. No seizure of a security or other interest evidenced thereby is effective until the person making the seizure obtains possession of the security.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ml#docCont


Arouet wrote:Perhaps - but I need your help.


You don't need my help because you're not interested in your slavery or anyone elses you've made that plainly clear. You said you plan to do nothing so You're lieing here. I take it you do not wish to use honesty in your interactions with me, how unhonorable of you sir.

Arouet wrote:How do you interpret this provision?


You cannot?

Arouet wrote:I don't think I wrote that the contitution is a paragon of morality (though it does pretty well I think). It does, however, provide the framework for law making. Unfortunately our courts don't recognize the primacy of love.


I find the constitution to be quite lacking in morals due to the security of the person section. Unfortunately the courts don't understand love, so cannot recognize it, just like you.

Arouet wrote:I've addressed this above.


And I dissembled your attempt to explain how you can differentiate a trust between you and the government as a conceptual matter but allow a trust between me and you to be practical, this makes no sense you'll have to try again sir.

Arouet wrote:I'm not asking you for every example. I'm asking you for a single example.


And i'm asking you for a single example of the law requiring the minister to inform me, go on... i'm waiting. I take your reply as a "I cannot cecil1 i'm very sorry."

Arouet wrote:Hopefully now you understand what I mean by practical example.


Hopefully now you can understand what I mean by intentionally obtuse.

Arouet wrote:But you only talked about a trust company. Not an individual.


This is a lie, i've explained above how multiple persons are construed to be single persons. Please do stay on track Arouet sir.

Arouet wrote:The trust is not a human being, right?


The law would disagree with you but I happen to agree with you.

Arouet wrote:That deeming provision only applies in specific circumstances. Not generally.


Really? What specific circumstances would those be Arouet? *hint* Look in part 7 OWNERSHIP
in the trust and loans companies act.

Arouet wrote:I'm just trying to get more information from you, but you seem to have acknoweldged that you've never heard of an actual case of an individual human being being declared canadian owned. so I'm beginning to fear you can't help me.


So what you're saying is you cannot find a section in the COACDA1985 that requires the minister to inform me of an application made? I'm beginning to fear you can't help me.

Arouet wrote:See how it only applies in certain circumstances?


PART VII
OWNERSHIP
Division I
Interpretation

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-57


Can you be more specific?




Arouet wrote:That deeming provision only applies in specific circumstances. Not generally.


You're the own who is focusing on these exact specifics, please explain further? If you cannot, i'll assume you're ignorant.

Arouet wrote:No. Parliament does not hold canada in trust for the crown.


Then why is it written in a crown of maples as such with detailed history? Who's making this stuff up? Why is the trust that exists for greater certainty deemed to be a corporation? Wouldnt that place the owner in a corporation? Wouldn't someone who is canadian controlled via a corporate trust be involved in a corporation? Why does canada have a comprehensive annual financial report when the financial administration act allows certain corporations to be excluded from filing annually? Why not include canada in the exclusion? Why is the CanFR listed for public viewing on the CRA website if canada is not a corporate trust? /boggle

Arouet wrote:I mean she's in no way the owner of canada.


But she is the executive authority for canada and executives operate on the board of directors in a company or corporate trust don't they? ;) Where in any legislation does it enable executives to not be on a board of directors? Show me sir.

Arouet wrote:I can read English at the university level.


I disagree you cannot even decipher an act. You said it yourself you could read an act 100 times and not understand it. Hardly university, perhaps go back and redo the courses over?

Arouet wrote:Understanding the English on this forum is far easier than the english in the statutes on the DOJ website.


This forum doesn't provide detailed english definitions like the acts on the doj website does, so what is the problem exactly here?

Arouet wrote:Not since the invention of spellcheck I haven't!


I disagree, you cannot read the english with definitions provided on the doj website but you can read english fine here with a sweeping linguistic vocabulary. I call bulldoohicky on you.

Arouet wrote:I do appreciate your time, which I know is quite valuable.


And I appreciate yours, you help me refine the truthful arguements needed to disrupt disinfo agents such as yourself. Be well :)
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 27 Jun 2012, 09:42

Thank you for educating me, cecil. I've decided that I if that Act makes me a Canadian slave then I'm ok with it. I'm not in favour of most slavery, but I'm in favour of this slavery as I trust Canadians to own me properly. Most slavery is immoral but I think Canada is enlightened enough that it will not abuse its ownership of me and will do so to my advantage. You have convinced me of that and for that I thank you! In fact, I feel lucky to be owned by a country like Canada! Actually, I encourage all Canadians to make sure they are properly owned by Canada!

Thanks again!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 28 Jun 2012, 03:34

All this right before Canada day too, Happy Canada day buddy lol.

I'll post the difference between concept of law vs ownership later.

Be well :)
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Jun 2012, 03:53

Thanks Cecil! Should be having a nice day with the kids!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 28 Jun 2012, 04:22

I don't mean to break up this happy little discussion between you and Cecil1...but exactly what do Canadians do on Canadia day? ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Jun 2012, 06:23

NinjaPuppy wrote:I don't mean to break up this happy little discussion between you and Cecil1...but exactly what do Canadians do on Canadia day? ;)


Well, aside from celebrating our lack of freedom there are various celebrations around. Ottawa (the nation's capital) makes a pretty big deal with all sorts of events.

In my city, they put on a really nice day at a local park where they have food, entertainment, artisans selling their wares (and usually a psychic or two! :shock:) games and a bunch of those big inflatable slides and trampolines and climbing things for the kids. They have fireworks in the evening but the kids usually don't last that long. It's a pretty nice event actually!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 28 Jun 2012, 07:33

Arouet wrote:Well, aside from celebrating our lack of freedom there are various celebrations around. Ottawa (the nation's capital) makes a pretty big deal with all sorts of events.

In my city, they put on a really nice day at a local park where they have food, entertainment, artisans selling their wares (and usually a psychic or two! :shock:) games and a bunch of those big inflatable slides and trampolines and climbing things for the kids. They have fireworks in the evening but the kids usually don't last that long. It's a pretty nice event actually!

Ahhh. Thanks. Are the various goodies at these events free or do you pay as you go? Around here almost all the time you pay for food but stuff like the bouncy houses and slides are free and there's no admittance or charge for the activities. Of course that's just here because the city makes a ton of frickin' money via tourism so they make everyone happy with all sorts of great weekend events all year long.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron