Discuss General Topics.
I'll admit that I reported a post of his that went over the line in my opinion. I really don't like being called an a-hole, especially when I don't believe it was warranted. Arouet, myself, and others tried repeatedly to get him to discuss things without the personal attacks, but to no avail. If he's interested enough, he can certainly request reinstatement through Scepcop, though that would mean he may have to actually check out his bio...
I'd say he was banned for being a source of annoyance and chaos and I think it was the right thing to do. I certainly understand others' viewpoints, however. I support his banning but honestly I don't think it's worth worrying about too much. He was a fool; let's just move on.
I have no direct PROOF 9/11 was an inside job however considering big brothers horribad reputation with following good moral ethics... downright immoral...
let's see canada became a legal slave nation in 1985 and the LAWS of canada displayed for public viewing on the department of justice website CONFIRM THIS 100% PROOF. (I have multiple acts printed in hard copies) , USofA is a corporation and uscode reflects this in american LAW. (what is the name of americas ownership act does anyone know? I've spent years looking for it, american law is far harder to learn than canadian law.)
For the greater goods sake Wisegeeks.com cannot even grasp the proper definition of "beneficial owner" yet they can distinctly define "perfected security"? GIVE ME A BREAK! (Trust law anyone???)
Randi forum shills on the fmotl thread vs rob menard can't even enter a debate with direct lawful or legal evidence proving freeman society is wrong or pure disinfo regarding common law vs statutory law (even though it's there, in the acts) proving to me no pseudoskeptic will allow official policy(no acts or statutes, only court desicions which do not explain the policy the desicion was based on HOW CONVENIENT! No better way to hide policy in debate than to use the court desicions policies are based off of then pointing to the desicion and crying SEE TEH JUDGE SEZ UR WRONGZ!) information to rebut freeman disinfo.
So to break it down I would say that there is indeed a monolithic establishment fully provable within the LAWS of our nations and that there are many people who benefit, beneficially from this plot 9/11, as owners, you know the SHAREHOLDERS, the international bankers who own our corporate/countries,( The ones that operate according to the sovereign immunities act and within the state immunity act which basically says in laymans terms, screw the law im untouchable combined with the ownership control act.) not you or I as we are not shareholders, in canada of our persons (both of them) and in america of your country.
See in canada I can prove legal slavery, in america i cannot find the ownership act so im reduced to proving only that america is a corporation and that there are defintions within their laws that allow for jurisdictional immunity defined by words not territory and those are dramatically aligned with canadas version of said laws, seeing as USofA is nearly identical to canada regarding ownership laws, I see the missing piece of the puzzle, but do not know how to locate it... yet.
Is it really so unfathomable to imagine the serial murder raping a victim?
IS IT REALLY?
It's a very long story, i will share sometime if you further inquire but right now i'm not in the mood for grand story telling and in depth explanations, last night i couldve, this morning not so much.
So you will have to suffer with links to the department of justice,
I'll pick out a few cherries for you though Arouet, make it easier for ya.
“control status” means, with respect to a person, whether or not the person is Canadian controlled as determined under this Act and the regulations;
“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;
Definition of "non-eligible person"
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “non-eligible person” has the same meaning as it has under subsection 3(1) of the Foreign Investment Review Act, chapter 46 of the Statutes of Canada, 1973-74, and the regulations made pursuant to that Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require, except that, until September 1, 1987,
(a) the definition "non-eligible person" in subsection 3(1) of that Act shall be read as if subparagraph (a)(ii) of that definition were deleted therefrom; and
(b) subsection 3(5) of that Act shall be read as if the words "and permanent residents who have been ordinarily resident in Canada for more than one year after the time at which they first became eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship", wherever those words appear therein, were deleted therefrom.
(*My personal sidenote, try to find the FIRA1974... IT DOES NOT EXIST IN LAW ANYMORE IT WAS AMMENDED BY INVESTMENT CANADA ACT SO WHY IS THIS ACT IN FORCE DEMANDING TO BE ACCORDED TO AN ACT NOT IN FORCE FOR DECADES? anyone getting this?)
(3)For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists with respect to all assets, investments or propertyheld by a trustee under a trust instrument for the benefit of a person, group or class of persons, notwithstanding that under the same trust instrument different assets, investments or property are held for the benefit of a different person, group or class of persons.
(7) For the purposes of this Act, a reference in this Part to the Foreign Investment Review Act, chapter 46 of the Statutes of Canada, 1973-74, or to any regulation made pursuant to that Act or to any provision of that Act or any such regulation shall be construed as a reference to that Act, regulation or provision as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 46 of the Investment Canada Act, chapter 20 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985.
(gee why do that? )
Who may apply
4. The following are qualified to apply for a certificate:
(a) an individual other than a non-eligible person;
(b) a corporation incorporated in Canada;
(c) a partnership, if the relationship among the partners as such is governed by the laws of a province;
(d) a trustee in respect of a trust, if the trustee and beneficiaries are, with respect to their status as such, governed by the laws of a province;
(e) an insurance company incorporated in Canada in respect of any of its segregated funds within the meaning of the regulations; and
(f) any person prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate or who falls into a class of persons prescribed as being qualified to apply for a certificate.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 37.
(2) Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 20(f) or (g), a person is Canadian controlled if that person is not a non-eligible person and is not Canadian controlled if that person is a non-eligible person. (orlly? )
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a partnership or trust is a non-eligible person, the partnership or trust shall be deemed to be a corporation incorporated in Canada or elsewhere, and(a) with respect to a partnership, the interests or rights in respect of its capital or income shall be deemed to be shares of the corporation, the beneficial owners of those interests or rights shall be deemed to be shareholders of the corporation and, with respect to a limited partnership, any general partner shall be deemed to be a member of the board of directors of the corporation; and
(b) with respect to a trust, the beneficial interests in the property of the trust shall be deemed to be shares of the corporation, the owners of those beneficial interests shall be deemed to be shareholders of the corporation and the trustees shall be deemed to be members of the board of directors of the corporation.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 38.
Offence by employee or agent
24. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act or the regulations, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused, whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 56.
Officers, etc., of corporations
25. Where a corporation commits an offence under this Act or the regulations, any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.
1980-81-82-83, c. 107, s. 57.
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.
So Arouet, are you the shareholder of your person?
Reference : http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html
Bankers(Political subdivisions) Immunity
*Hint* definitions section
Sec. 9 for confirmation of legal slavery
I have no idea what you are referring to, but while it is not unfathomable that a serial murderer might rape a victim and it is not too hard to imagine, one cannot infer that because someone is a serial murderer that they are also likely a rapist as well.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests