Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 31-10-2011, 09:40 AM   #1
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default "Equity trumps the law"

In an effort to stop the derailment happening on another thread I am going to put Cecil1's theory that equity trumps the law to the test.

He has cited the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act 1985 in support of his theory. Now, I am not a Canadian lawyer but we have forum members with knowledge of Canadian law on this forum and I would value their input.

As I understand it, however, the Act in question relates to equity - in the sense of ownership - insofar as it relates to Canadian businesses. I have no idea how this is supposed to demonstrate that equity - in the sense of principles originating from the Court of Chancery - trumps the law.

If anyone can explain, please do so.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 09:45 AM   #2
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The same Act has been cited on another thread as creating some sort of blanket rule as to "evidentiary privilege" as well.

????
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 09:47 AM   #3
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
In an effort to stop the derailment[please note derailment here means exposure of micklemus' insincere untruth meant to arouse trouble and now micklepuss is forced to combat me in debate directly instead of hiding in insinuations.] happening on another thread I am going to put Cecil1's theory that equity trumps the law to the test.

He has cited the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act 1985 in support of his theory. Now, I am not a Canadian lawyer but we have forum members with knowledge of Canadian law on this forum and I would value their input.

As I understand it, however, the Act in question relates to equity - in the sense of ownership - insofar as it relates to Canadian businesses. I have no idea how this is supposed to demonstrate that equity - in the sense of principles originating from the Court of Chancery - trumps the law.

If anyone can explain, please do so.
I'm confused how you arrived at the conclusion this act relates to canadian business, clearly the act states what it is respecting directly under the title?

Have you ever read law before? it certainly does not appear so.

Last edited by weeman; 04-11-2011 at 01:58 AM.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 09:50 AM   #4
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
I'm confused how you arrived at the conclusion this act relates to canadian business, clearly the act states what it is respecting directly under the title?

Have you ever read law before? it certainly does not appear so.
It's your commentary, not mine, and I've already said that I'm not a Canadian lawyer. Someone should be along later to assist on that front though.

Meanwhile, the floor is yours to explain and clarify what you mean - if I've misunderstood you, as you appear to be alleging.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:07 AM   #5
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
It's your commentary, not mine, and I've already said that I'm not a Canadian lawyer. Someone should be along later to assist on that front though.

Meanwhile, the floor is yours to explain and clarify what you mean - if I've misunderstood you, as you appear to be alleging.
Well if you read what the act is respecting then by all means... but don't take my word for it, you seem to be extremely interested in debunking fmtol theories (don't we all?) so why are you not investigating the claims fmotl makes? were you just not "certain" where to look? or are you armchair skeptic? maybe if you took some time and studied (rob spent 7 years on this) you would have the mental fortitude to decipher big words. yes big words make brain hurt micklemus, but if you were really serious about your resolve to expose fmotl you would think you might take some time and read up on it yes? no? not up your alley? I don't blame you for being scared of big words. maybe you have better things to do than study on fmtol secret law, like argueing pointlessly with absolutley no proof which takes up some odd 3thousand posts of lies and deceipt, your last post was a perfect example of this and the way you lied about derailingment, super slick there pal... remember you lied about not believing the law exists so your whole post 's intent was to arouse trouble. But i forgive you micklemus, I have mercy on you. No need to thank me for not reporting you. cheers matey.. p.s. read the act and when you understand it il'll show you what's next lol.. ya right, you wont get past section 2. You'll never prove fmotl wrong unless you study hard. rob just crafty like that. deal with it.

Last edited by weeman; 03-11-2011 at 07:22 AM. Reason: my keyboard sucks/user request to edit
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:13 AM   #6
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Clarification!!!!!!!!!!!

I need to add another link - apologies for not doing so before but it appears that I misunderstood Cecil1's posts, not that this affects the underlying issues.

The post about equity trumping the law is this one - http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....1&postcount=47. See also http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....7&postcount=49.

So Cecil1 relies upon the Canadian State Immunity Act in this respect. How does this Act demonstrate that equity trumps the law?

Oh, he made the same assertion here as well.








...And again here.

Last edited by micklemus; 31-10-2011 at 11:13 PM.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:13 AM   #7
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

see heres the thing, you moan and bitch and complain and cry and everything under the sun except for investigating fmotl claims, all you do is beg for evidence, i gave it to you, read it or don't, simple.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:16 AM   #8
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

if your not intelligent enough to read the acts then your definatley not intelligent enough to debunk fmotl claims. simple. perhaps stay the hell out of law forums, i don't know what to say man, I don't wanna call you stupid, how about ignorant? peace matey =D
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:16 AM   #9
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

So, it boils down to 2 issues identified by Cecil1 which I would like to explore on this thread:-

1. How does the Canadian State Immunity Act demonstrate that equity trumps the law?
2. How does the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act create a blanket rule as to "evidentiary privilege"?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:07 PM   #10
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
So, it boils down to 2 issues identified by Cecil1 which I would like to explore on this thread:-

1. How does the Canadian State Immunity Act demonstrate that equity trumps the law?
2. How does the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act create a blanket rule as to "evidentiary privilege"?
Very good questions, are you intelligent enough to read the big words in the acts I gave as evidence or will you flounder and continue your proofless assault on fmotl? I am more than willing to help you micklemus, believe it, but I can't hold your hand, learning "law" takes a long time of learning what words mean... it's not easy (for most) so again as I stated, I will help you on the next step of your journey if you would only educate yourself to the point where you cannot go further(such as what the info in the acts can give you) fair enough sir?

Last edited by weeman; 03-11-2011 at 07:23 AM. Reason: user request to edit
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:12 PM   #11
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
Very good questions, are you intelligent enough to read the big words in the acts I gave as evidence or will you flounder and continue your proofless assault on fmotl? I am more than willing to help you micklemus, believe it, but I can't hold your hand, learning "law" takes a long time of learning what words mean... it's not easy (for most) so again as I stated, I will help you on the next step of your journey if you would only educate yourself to the point where you cannot go further(such as what the info in the acts can give you) fair enough sir?
It's no skin off my nose. We have people with good knowledge and experience of Canadian law, so I'm perfectly happy to await their feedback.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about though.

Last edited by weeman; 03-11-2011 at 07:24 AM. Reason: Editing quote
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:37 PM   #12
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
It's no skin off my nose. We have people with good knowledge and experience of Canadian law, so I'm perfectly happy to await their feedback.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about though.

Oh it's not what i say, it's what the applicable acts state isn't it? Perhaps what you meant is that you have a sneaking suspicion that the acts haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about though.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:38 PM   #13
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
Oh it's not what i say, it's what the applicable acts state isn't it? Perhaps what you meant is that you have a sneaking suspicion that the acts haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about though.
No, I meant what I said first time.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:40 PM   #14
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
No, I meant what I said first time.
So you agree, you meant to say the acts state wrongly? Perhaps a read into the acts would clear your foggy perception on what the big words mean?
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:46 PM   #15
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
So you agree, you meant to say the acts state wrongly? Perhaps a read into the acts would clear your foggy perception on what the big words mean?
No, let's put it in very simple terms that don't need editing, misrepresenting, 'reinterpreting' or anything else by you:-

I suspect (very strongly) that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about in relation to your assertions that form the subject matter of this thread. However, I am not a Canadian lawyer and I and I am therefore happy to await and defer to those with the requisite knowledge, who will no doubt be viewing this subforum in the not too distant future.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 10:53 PM   #16
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
No, let's put it in very simple terms that don't need editing, misrepresenting, 'reinterpreting' or anything else by you:-

I suspect (very strongly) that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about in relation to your assertions that form the subject matter of this thread. However, I am not a Canadian lawyer and I and I am therefore happy to await and defer to those with the requisite knowledge, who will no doubt be viewing this subforum in the not too distant future.
You have not even read the acts I presented as evidence, (while you produce none ) so how can you have any platform to stand on in your assumptions? Are you able to levitate? Please do share
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 11:08 PM   #17
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
You have not even read the acts I presented as evidence, (while you produce none ) so how can you have any platform to stand on in your assumptions? Are you able to levitate? Please do share
No comparison necessary. One just has to look at your assertions and compare with the Acts.

As I say, I'm happy to wait for someone else's input, someone else with knowledge of Canadian law that is. Meanwhile I'll let you witter on by yourself.

If you wish to open a thread on levitation be my guest.

Last edited by micklemus; 31-10-2011 at 11:14 PM.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 11:27 PM   #18
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
No comparison necessary. One just has to look at your assertions and compare with the Acts.

As I say, I'm happy to wait for someone else's input, someone else with knowledge of Canadian law that is. Meanwhile I'll let you witter on by yourself.

If you wish to open a thread on levitation be my guest.

But you have not compared the acts to the statements made, so you accuse baselessly. Excellent. Bravo. You'll go far.

OMG, no comparison necessary but one only has to compare.... WTF? ROFL...

Last edited by cecil1; 31-10-2011 at 11:35 PM.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 11:51 PM   #19
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
But you have not compared the acts to the statements made, so you accuse baselessly. Excellent. Bravo. You'll go far.

OMG, no comparison necessary but one only has to compare.... WTF? ROFL...
Oh blimey you're tedious but I'm very happy to give you the floor right now. As is obvious from our previous exchange my reference to "no comparison necessary" relates to your criticism of me for not putting up something to compare your assertions against. As I go on to say, one only needs in fact to compare your assertions with the Acts you rely upon. It's no wonder that freemen fail with analytical skills like yours. Another who tries to play with words and overlook the message. Anyway, I'm off to bed now and I'll await input from learned Canadian buddies. We'll pick this up again after that, whenever that might be.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 12:01 AM   #20
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Oh blimey you're tedious but I'm very happy to give you the floor right now. As is obvious from our previous exchange my reference to "no comparison necessary" relates to your criticism of me for not putting up something to compare your assertions against. As I go on to say, one only needs in fact to compare your assertions with the Acts you rely upon. It's no wonder that freemen fail with analytical skills like yours. Another who tries to play with words and overlook the message. Anyway, I'm off to bed now and I'll await input from learned Canadian buddies. We'll pick this up again after that, whenever that might be.
But what could you put up anything but what the act says? That is the source of "authority" you asked for, and I gave it, it is not my fault you refuse to educate yourself on the matter. So your explanation of your previous comment of no comparing needed one only needs to compare stands, as balderdash. Your quite the intellect aren't you? Big Words.

p.s. MICKLEMUS (what a name.. seriously i keep thinking of a cat...) I thought you were interested in the thread topic? Were you lieing? Your interested in the thread but refuse to investigate the evidence... yes go to bed, dream of making sense.

Last edited by cecil1; 01-11-2011 at 09:06 PM. Reason: Typo in Micklemus'es handle
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.