I'm sorry to hear that EldonG has been banned for three days. I will reply now regardless in hopes that EldonG will respond after three days when he is able to post again.
So??? The Bills of Exchange Act of Canada has not been otherwise modified, making promissory notes 'negotiable instruments' as per the Financial Administration Act of Canada.
That doesn't mean that promissory notes are money. Obviously promissory notes are negotiable instruments by definition, and they always have been.
The Bills of Exchange Act was enacted or revised in the early 1930s to allow 'settlement' of debt because there was no real asset value money to 'pay' a debt,
No, the act has never been inacted or revised for this reason.
thus preventing a creditor from sueing or confiscating property because they did not get an exchange of a real asset for an asset sold.
No. Switching to a fiat currency at no point allowed anyone to make this argument. If you think that anyone ever did make this argument succesfully feel free to point us to the decision.
So, if Parliament says that Canadian currency is no longer a bill of exchange, then that means that creditors are getting truly ripped off, and currency is purely a con game.
Yes, it is a fiat currency and I can understand why some poeple have trouble with the concept. But money has value because the vast majority of people value it highly. This is the same for anything when you break it down. Gold only has value because the vast majority of people value it. Gold has some intrinsic value and fiat currency doesn't, but at the end of the day both are highly valued by the vast majority of people. Nobody is getting ripped off.
If a person for some reason doesn't value money and thinks getting paid in money is a "rip off" they are free to negotiate payment in any form they like. If you can find someone willing to pay you for your labour in chickens, or gold, or magic beans rather than money there is nothing preventing you from entering into this kind of arrangement.
The revision just says that Canadian Currency is now pure Monopoly Money, and is a total fraud upon the Canadian people
It isn't a fraud because everyone knows we have a fiat currency. Most people understand what this means and are still happy to accept money as payment for their services. This isn't any kind of secret, and as I pointed out, people are not forced to accept money if they can make other arrangements. So the situation clearly doesn't come close to anything amounting to fraud.
What is the point of attempting to discuss such matters with a traitor and liar?
I guess calling me a traitor is somewhat subjective and you are entitled to your opinion. But to call me a liar it would make sense to first point out something I have said that you believe is a lie. You haven't really responded to any of my points and I believe that I can provide evidence and reaons to back up what I have said here. So I would suggest that you should either point out what you consider to be a lie or else retract your statement.
All the evidence and proof in the world would not change your loyalty to your primary oath to the Lawyers Guild ( The BAR) of the City of London, and thus the Pontiff's Holy Roman Empire evil dictatoprship.
First of all, the fact that lawyers swear an oath to uphold the law does not mean that pledged any loyalty to the government above their clients. I am not a government employee and I regularly assist individuals who are in disputes with the government. I have no loyalty to the pope or to city of London because obviously no lawyer's oath has anything to do with these entities. It is an oath to uphold principles of fairness and to follow the law. Not an oath to follow or be loyal to any specific entity.
Also, there is not a "Lawyers Guild" but lawyers in Canada are members of the law society in their respective provinces. However being a member does not require anyone to swear any kind of oath of loyalty to the organization. The law society is responsible for setting the requirements for education, training, and qualifications that someone must complete and maintain in order to become or remain a lawyer. The law society obviously does not prevent someone from being swayed by good arguments even if they run counter to best interests of the law society (not that any of your arguments have anything to do with the law society even if I did swear some kind of oath to them). There is also nothing that prevents a lawyer from representing clients in disputes with the law society, something which happens regularly.
A good example of this is 'person'. That term is commonly used to mean a human creature, but in legal terms/code, it means a subservient member of a corporate body, or a crewmember on a ship, who is subservient to the supreme command of the captain of the ship.
This is not the case. There are countless numbers of statutes that define "preson." None of which define it in the manner you suggest. There are also many cases where the courts have considered the legal definition of person (many where people have tried to make the same type of argument you are making here). Again, none of these decision have agreed with your definition.
So if you are the only one saying that a certian definition is the right one, I think by default yu are wrong regardless of what type of linguistic argument you make. Reality has simply trumped whatever linguistic/historical/legal argument you think you have.
