• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cestui que vie act of 1666

tsig said:
In FOTLish when a word sounds like another that means they have the same meaning.
Click to expand...
Or words that seem to be embedded in others ("understand" = "stand under" in FOTLish).

... and they merrily ignore anyone who points out this doesn't work in other languages (most notably Canada, which has two official languages: English and French). What happens when the court proceedings aren't in English? :D
 
grmcdorman said:
Or words that seem to be embedded in others ("understand" = "stand under" in FOTLish).

... and they merrily ignore anyone who points out this doesn't work in other languages (most notably Canada, which has two official languages: English and French). What happens when the court proceedings aren't in English? :D
Click to expand...


Well, in French, "understand" is "Comprendre".

"Comp" is something you get free at a casino (gambling)

"rendre" can be misspelled "render", that is, to give.

So if a Quebecois Cop asks if you "comprendre" him, he's really asking, "Do you want to take a gamble on my giving you your freedom?"

See, it's simple.

Sheeple.
 
Horatius said:
Well, in French, "understand" is "Comprendre".

"Comp" is something you get free at a casino (gambling)

"rendre" can be misspelled "render", that is, to give.

So if a Quebecois Cop asks if you "comprendre" him, he's really asking, "Do you want to take a gamble on my giving you your freedom?"

See, it's simple.

Sheeple.
Click to expand...
I never trusted those Franco-Canadans...
 
All my four children were born at home, not in a hospital. Incidentally, so was I, and so was my mother. Does that mean I and my children somehow fall outside this madness, and am not a slave of OCollins' fantasy bad guys?
 
Agatha said:
All my four children were born at home, not in a hospital. Incidentally, so was I, and so was my mother. Does that mean I and my children somehow fall outside this madness, and am not a slave of OCollins' fantasy bad guys?
Click to expand...

So was i as was all my brothers and sisters, I didn't even have a birth certificate till I was two.

We may be some of the last free humans.
 
Agatha said:
All my four children were born at home, not in a hospital. Incidentally, so was I, and so was my mother. Does that mean I and my children somehow fall outside this madness, and am not a slave of OCollins' fantasy bad guys?
Click to expand...

tsig said:
So was i as was all my brothers and sisters, I didn't even have a birth certificate till I was two.

We may be some of the last free humans.
Click to expand...

I think this means you guys legally own the rest of us. Unless we're Moorish, and of course I'm a Moor* so you don't own me, but I think you're allowed to start making rules for everyone else, and maybe even selling off a few of them. I'm not sure what the going rate for slaves is, though and frankly, a lot of our fellow forumites have considerable tread wear, so it might not be all that lucrative. But, hey... owning people must be cool. How's that feel?


*and can prove it if you'll just send $34.95 for our introductory seminar.
 
Agatha said:
All my four children were born at home, not in a hospital. Incidentally, so was I, and so was my mother. Does that mean I and my children somehow fall outside this madness, and am not a slave of OCollins' fantasy bad guys?
Click to expand...

Bad news I'm afraid.
The clues are there: birth canal, waters breaking, it all leads back to admiralty law.
 
Yup. To quote Loon O' Collins:

As you can see by these canons, the size and breath of admiralty is extraordinary. It is hoped this information will assist those facing the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds who persistently refuse to follow their own rules, their own laws and remain obsessed in destroying any last vestige of rule of law.
Click to expand...

It's dead easy to make all law admiralty law when you also define what admiralty law is.

I do enjoy an occasional look at O'Collins though, the extent of his self-imposed lunacy is really something to behold.
 
It appears they are about to pass the Presumption of Death Bill:

http://www.lexology.com/library/det...=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-01-02&utm_term=

Apparently this will make it easier to declare people dead following major events where one can make a fair assumption as to the death of someone without having to wait the 7 years set out in the Cestui que vie act etc.

Isn't this going to remove a major pillar upon which FOTL woo is based?
 
Last edited:
The Palmernator said:
It appears they are about to pass the Presumption of Death Bill:

http://www.lexology.com/library/det...=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-01-02&utm_term=

Apparently this will make it easier to declare people dead following major events where one can make a fair assumption as to the death of someone without having to wait the 7 years set out in the Cestui que vie act etc.

Isn't this going to remove a major pillar upon which FOTL woo is based?
Click to expand...

That'll be the day. They'll either:
(a) ignore it (as they do whenever someone points out the repeal of most of the Magna Carta) or
(b) invent new woo based on the new statute
 
No, they'll just see these bits:

The Bill, if enacted, will simplify the current complex procedures ... it may also operate to cut short the very lengthy delay before a declaration can be made,
Click to expand...


..and then claim it's all about making it even easier for The Government to declare you dead, so as to be able to steal all your stuff even sooner.
 
The thing that puzzles me is this...

Under Cestui que vie and every other rebuttal of death act type thing, surely it isn't the Government declaring to you that a person is dead and nicking his stuff, its YOU declaring to the GOVERNMENT that a person is dead so that YOU can nick HIS stuff...? Haven't the FOTLers got it kind of the wrong way round?

Sorry, talking sense again. Nasty habit.
 
Last edited:
The Palmernator said:
It appears they are about to pass the Presumption of Death Bill:

http://www.lexology.com/library/det...=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-01-02&utm_term=

Apparently this will make it easier to declare people dead following major events where one can make a fair assumption as to the death of someone without having to wait the 7 years set out in the Cestui que vie act etc.

Isn't this going to remove a major pillar upon which FOTL woo is based?
Click to expand...


Since that isn't actually what they say the act does, they'll probably just ignore it. That, or say that it is a special sort of statute that can't ever be amended or repealed, as they do for statutes they approve of such as Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights.
 
Apparently this will make it easier to declare people dead following major events where one can make a fair assumption as to the death of someone without having to wait the 7 years set out in the Cestui que vie act etc.

Isn't this going to remove a major pillar upon which FOTL woo is based?
Click to expand...
Nope, because they misinterpret the act anyway.
 
Last edited:
The Palmernator said:
Haven't the FOTLers got it kind of the wrong way round?
Click to expand...



The answer to that question is, almost invariably, always "Yes".

Yes, they have it completely backwards, but for a group that on at least one occasion have asserted that the word "must" actually means "may" when used in statute law, simply getting the intended purpose of a law completely backwards isn't much of a stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom