I didn't avoid; I answered -
Of course you did...
Your question is daft and/or intended to avoid the issue, highlighted once again by you avoiding what I put to you -
Now, to the rest of your post
Now we're getting somewhere. You don't deny it. Sources elsewhere suggest you did sell him the package.
Do you claim you were there? I said I don't remember. Nice how you twist it.
On what basis? Everything suggests that he followed your advice to the letter.
Well then you must know what I said to him, right? Were you there and if not, how do you know what was even said? You are operating fully on baseless assumptions.
Because people who, like you, hold themselves out as being in a position of being able to give legal advice owe duties in the process. If a lawyer gives bad advice which is relied upon he is liable for the consequences. Whether the recipient should have known better or not is immaterial.
I share my beliefs, that is all. IS that unlawful?
Yes, you are responsible.
So, he's not?
Already answered, repeatedly. No, statutes do not require your consent. They are not contracts.
Can you prove that? The question was (seriously try to develop some reading comprehension!) DO STATUTES REQUIRE CONSENT? Ever read the enacting clause of the Acts? Why is the word consent specifically therein? Clearly statutes do require consent, of the legislature, and they require the consent of the people.
If neither party agrees to a contract, there is no contract. Arguably this is one means of "avoiding" a contract. There isn't one in the first place. It isn't daft at all but it has nothing to do with statutes, which are your baby. JB isn't daft, but your constant repeating of this question is, as described.
Thank you. Make sure you tell JB he was very wrong claiming that FMOTL was self debunking, by stating that if I did not agree with his rules, he could refuse to agree with the law.
Once again - are you going to provide the proof to support your claim about not being bound by statutes because you don't consent to them? "Yes or no" as you say.
Sure. But you won't or can't read or think it seems, so you will miss it.
Read Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
Looks to me like the answer is "no". For someone who sells advice claiming that you have the means to avoid all statutory liabilities, your inability to address this point is positively criminal.
More assumptions driven by ignorance and fear, without any basis in truth. I do not sell advice. Period. But your entire argument is based on the belief I do, and you ask I defend that strawman.
I'll check in later to look at your latest efforts to avoid. One thing's for sure, you won't answer my question because you can't. You can't answer my question because you don't have the answers. By selling advice claiming that you do, you are acting dishonestly. Very well done JB for hounding you on this. I wish more people did.
More selling advice? So you admit he was 'hounding' me. And then I am the one obsessed right? hahahahah
PS - thank you ComfySlippers.[/QUOTE]
IS consent necessary? Lets test it!
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
Looks like consent is needed after all. It says it right there. Do you consider that proof? Remember, (although due to your inability to read properly you added words to my question) the question was DO STATUTES REQUIRE CONSENT? The answer to that is clearly yes.
Now the question is, can the people in the legislature do anything without the consent of the people? Pretty sure if you ask them, they will tell you no, they need the consent of the people.
Now ask, can you consent to a contract, and bind me with it cause you agreed to it? And if not, what makes a statute any different?
Finally, the Queen herself has disavowed having any power over the people of Canada, and her enactments are not binding on me, for she is not my Queen, without my consent. And read it carefully, it was HER that enacted it, not the Legislature. Don't believe me? READ IT AGAIN!
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
Who is doing the enacting? The legislature or HER MAJESTY?
If the latter, and she is not my boss or queen, why would I have to follow it?
Can you explain THAT?
Or will you insult and avoid?
