Post by AbbotPost by Alan BaggettPost by Alan BaggettThe Tax Collector's Bible is a book that is useful to everyone - no
matter their position.
Accountants and tax lawyers swear by it.
Rumour has it that CRA 'teachers' are using the book to train
collections staff how to do their job.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Abbot 2) I am not familiar with your work, Alan. My point is that if you
think it is valuable selling it on the site of a snake oil salesman
like Russ Porisky is not a good thing for your reputation.
Post by Alan BaggettAbbot)Alan, I see that your "Tax Collector's Bible" is being sold at
Russell Anthony Porisky’s website:http://www.naturalperson.com/New
%20Website/7%20Paradigm%20Ed/Education%20Material%2007.htm#Tax%20Bible
Are you aware of Porisky’s false claims and poor reputation?
See:http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/msg/6a3ce37863dd5da9?hl=en
Post by Alan BaggettREPORT Confirms CRA Sloppy with Security :CRA SOTW
Taxman sloppy about security: report
OTTAWA — The people who safeguard the tax information of millions of
Canadians have been forgetting to lock the doors.
A new audit slams the Canada Revenue Agency for repeated failures to
maintain even basic security at seven key offices in Quebec and
Ontario, including two in Ottawa.
"Certain exterior and interior perimeter doors were not adequately
secured and deadbolts and other hardware were used inappropriately or
were missing," says the audit report from June.
All but one of the offices were faulted for the shoddy way doors were
locked. Keys, combination locks and key-cards were not properly
tracked, secured or used.
And at three offices, electronic alarm systems designed to thwart
intruders were defective, unarmed or missing altogether.
The blistering report notes this isn't the first time the tax-
collection agency has been cited for shoddy physical security at its
offices.
"Certain vulnerabilities were already noted during inspections . . .
over the last few years and had not yet been corrected," the report
notes.
Security inspectors fanned out between April 2007 and March of this
year, prodding and poking around the doors, gates, turnstiles and
windows of some of the agency's busiest offices. They also interviewed
the people responsible for local security.
Not only did the facilities frequently fail basic security tests, but
the employees in charge of security appeared to be clueless about the
standards they were required to maintain.
"Most security stakeholders interviewed by the internal auditors had
little knowledge of the security standards or equipment examined in
the audit," says the report.
"At some of the sites visited, employees who had left their security
positions were the only ones familiar with certain essential
functions."
Spokesmen for the agency did not respond to requests for comment and
information about the audit, including the addresses of the seven
offices. But the report says security officials have given themselves
until Sept. 30 next year to correct all the problems.
The Canada Revenue Agency last year reported numerous thefts and
losses of equipment at its facilities, including 25 laptops, 17
cellphones, six BlackBerries, five printers and a router.
Included among the stolen items were two video-surveillance cameras,
meant to deter thieves, together worth $8,244.
Another surveillance camera was stolen the year before, along with
$10,000 worth of metal bars and door handles.
The audit did not examine the security of the agency's electronic data
systems, which themselves have come under fire for breaches.
In 2004, for example, an audit found that laptops used outside the
office were not locked up properly and confidential information was
kept on computers that were vulnerable to hacking.
That report followed the 2003 theft of four computers from an agency
office in Laval, Que., containing the personal information of 120,000
Canadians.
The June audit, released this month, was budgeted for $32,000 in
travel costs and 6,000 hours of auditors' time.
The agency employs the equivalent of 38,000 workers and operates from
more than 100 offices across Canada.
Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
Pop the link below into your browser to view the entire CRA SOTW
Library!http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlanBaggett– Tax Collector’s Bible- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, name calling or casting aspersions might not be the best route
to go when arguing your case.
By the way, snakes can be used for a whole host of utile products -
their meat is edible, their skins can be used for clothing, belts and
accessories and their venom is used in the medical arena.
(and aboriginal Canadians are known to have used the tail of a rattler
in musical intruments, by shamans in rituals and as toys for tots)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Abbot) I’m just telling it like it is, Allan. There is no “case” to
make. As a matter of fact Porisky has misrepresented his tax case and
continues to pretend that he has a winning argument.
Porisky knew full well, or should have known, that he beat the tax rap
on mere prosecutorial error. Yet he pretended that his “natural
persons don’t have to pay taxes” argument won the day. He even
repeated that claim to me over the telephone!
Now that Eva Sydel and Chandler Turnnir have bit the dust after using
his “method”, Porisky is trying to explain away the failure of a
method he said would work.
If you want to be associated with that sort of dishonesty, Alan,
that’s your choice.
Now I've seen everything... Abbot the Retard preaching about
dishonesty LMFAO!!!!
Readers, although Porisky is in the wrong and I'll explain, Abbot the
Retard is nothing but a LYING PIECE OF SHIT to wit..
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot the Retard)
"Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
Quantrell (aka Abbot the Retard)
"The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot the Retard)
"The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot the Retard)
"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot the
Retard)
Readers, it is without question that all states/governments are
CORPORATIONS and Abbot the Retard is a LYING PIECE OF SHIT.
----------
US CODE COLLECTION
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > Sec. 3002.
Sec. 3002. - Definitions
(15)
''United States'' means -
(A)
a Federal corporation;
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)
"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."
"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
CORPORATIONS
5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.
6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
"The only law concerning corporations, to which I conceive the least
reference is to be had, is the common law of England on that subject.
I need not repeat the observations I made in respect to the operation
of that law in this country. The word 'corporations,' in its largest
sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware
of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be
restricted or transcendant, is in this sense 'a corporation.' The
King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29. b.
So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement,
1Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not
only each State singly, but even the United States may without
impropriety be termed "corporations."
"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual
States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of
powers.""
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
VAN BROCKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)
...
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, delivered
the opinion of the court:
The question presented by this writ of error is whether lands in the
state of Tennessee, which, pursuant to acts of congress for the laying
and collecting of direct taxes, are sold, struck off, and purchased by
the United States for the amount of the tax thereon, and are
afterwards sold by the United States for a larger sum. or redeemed by
the former owner, are liable to be taxed, under authority of the
state, while so owned by the United States. The judgment of the
supreme court of Tennessee rests upon the position that these lands,
although lawfully purchased by the United States, and owned by the
United States at the time of being taxed under the laws of the state,
were not exempt from state taxation, because they had not been
expressly ceded by the state to the United States. We are unable to
reconcile this position with a just view of the rights and powers
conferred upon the national government by the constitution of the
United States. The importance of [117 U.S. 151, 154] the subject, and
the consideration due to the opinion of that learned court, make it
proper to state somewhat fully the grounds of our conclusion.
In the words of Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The United States is a
government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of
attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are
necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained
and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great
powers for important purposes. Its powers are unquestionably limited;
but while within those limits, it is as perfect a govement as any
other, having all the faculties and properties belonging to a
government, with a perfect right to use them freely, in order to
accomplish the objects of its institution.' U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock.
96, 109.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
HEIM v. MCCALL, 239 U.S. 175 (1915)
...
The court of appeals reversed the action of the appellate division.
[239 U.S. 175, 188] The basic principle of the decision of the court
of appeals was that the state is a recognized unit, and those who are
not citizens of it are not members of it. Thus recognized it is a body
corporate, and, 'like any other body corporate, it may enter into
contracts and hold and dispose of property. In doing this, it acts
through agencies of government.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)
....
Even were I to accept the Court's premise that whether Territories are
"persons" for purposes of 1983 must be analyzed in light of the 1874
recodification of the Dictionary Act, I would reach the same
conclusion. Although the recodification eliminated the reference to
"body politic," this change did not exclude Territories from the scope
of 1983 because the recodification also provided that "the word
`person' may extend and be applied to partnerships and corporations,"
id., at 19 (emphasis added). At the time of the revision the term
"corporation" generally was thought to include political entities such
as a Territory. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 451 (1867)
(remarks of Rep. Bingham) (referring to the Territory of Nebraska as
"a corporation"). "The word `corporations,' in its largest sense, has
a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware of. Any body
politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be restricted or
transcendant is in this sense `a corporation.'" Chisholm v. Georgia, 2
Dall. 419, 447 (1793) (Iredell, J.). 8 A Territory thus would [495
U.S. 182, 202] qualify as a "person" even under the 1874
recodification of the Dictionary Act.
[ Footnote 8 ] At common law, a "corporation" was an "artificial perso
[n] endowed with the legal capacity of perpetual succession"
consisting either of a single individual (termed a "corporation sole")
or of a collection of several individuals (a "corporation aggregate").
3 H. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England 166, 168 (1st Am.
ed. 1845). The sovereign was considered a corporation. See id., at
170; see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *467. Under the
definitions supplied by contemporary law dictionaries, Territories
would have been classified as "corporations" (and hence as "persons")
at the time that 1983 was enacted and the Dictionary Act recodified.
See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) ("All corporations
were originally modeled upon a state or nation"); 1 J. Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
of America 318-319 (11th ed. 1866) ("In this extensive sense the
United States may be termed a corporation"); Van Brocklin v.
Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154 (1886) ("`The United States is a . . .
great corporation . . . ordained and established by the American
people'") (quoting United [495 U.S. 182, 202] States v. Maurice, 26 F.
Cas. 1211, 1216 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.)); Cotton
v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851) (United States is "a
corporation"). See generally Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 561-562 (1819) (explaining history of term
"corporation").
----------
E. Cobham Brewer 1810-1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Body Politic (A).
A whole nation considered as a political corporation; the state. In
Latin, totum corpus reipublica.
----------
Oxford English Dictionary
body n.
14. a. Law. An artificial "person" created by legal authority for
certain ends; a corporation; commonly a corporation aggregate, but
also applied to a corporation sole (cf. quots. 1641, 1642). Always
with defining adj. body corporate, body politic.
b. body politic has also the wider sense of "organized society".
c. spec. the body politic: the nation in its corporate character; the
state. (Orig. there appears to have been, in this use of body, a
reference to the headship of the sovereign.)
----------
The Cataloger's Reference Shelf
Corporate body:
An organization or group of persons that is identified by a particular
name and that acts, or may act, as an entity. Typical examples of
corporate bodies are associations, institutions, business firms,
nonprofit enterprises, governments, government agencies, religious
bodies, local churches, and conferences.
----------
wordIQ.com Body Politic
'Body politic or body corporate and politic means a state or one of
its subordinate civil authorities, such as a:
province
prefecture
county
municipality
city
district etc.
----------
CHAPTER X.: Of Corporations. - James Wilson, Collected Works of James
Wilson, vol. 2 [2007]
"[I]n a state, smaller societies may be formed by a part of its
members: that these smaller societies, like states, are deemed to be
moral persons . . .. To these societies the name of corporations is
generally appropriated, though somewhat improperly; for that the term
is strictly applicable to supreme as well as to inferior bodies
politic."
----------
United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211 (C.C.D. Va. 1823) (Marshall,
C.J.).
"The United States is a government, and, consequently, a body politic
and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was
created . . .. This great corporation was ordained and established by
the American people . . .. Its powers are unquestionably
limited . . .."
----------
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy
The Corporate Conception of the State and the Origins of Limited
Constitutional Government
Quoting FRANCIS LIEBER, 3 ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA 547 (1830).
"[a]ll the American governments are corporations created by charters,
viz. their constitutions . . .."
"[t]he whole political system is made up of a concatenation of various
corporations, political, civil, religious, social and economical,"
"the nation itself a great corporation, comprehending all others."
----------
JAMES MADISON, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 2
"[t]he United States shall be forever considered as one body corporate
and politic in law"
----------
RESPUBLICA v. SWEERS, 1 U.S. 41 (1779)
"[f]rom the moment of their association, the United States necessarily
became a body corporate."
----------
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy
The Corporate Conception of the State and the Origins of Limited
Constitutional Government
Quoting WILLIAM PRYNNE, THE SOVERAIGNE POWER OF PARLIAMENTS AND
KINGDOMS I, 41
"Kings, Lords, and Commons, by the Common Law, make up but one intire
Corporation . . .."
----------
"In medieval and early modern history, the application of corporate
law principles to the state contributed to the development of
constitutionalism and to the idea of popular sovereignty." - BRIAN
TIERNEY, RELIGION, LAW AND THE GROWTH OF CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT 82-84
(1982).
-----------
"The conception of the state as a corporation has historically been
associated with the major goal of constitutionalism: the limitation of
governmental power by the law." - CHARLES HOWARD MCILWAIN,
CONSTITUTIONALISM ANCIENT AND MODERN (rev. ed. 1947).
----------
Supreme Court of Canada
stoffman v. vancouver general hospital
"In short, McIntyre J. was of the view that the references in s. 32(1)
to the "government of Canada" and the "government of each province"
could not be interpreted as bringing within the ambit of the Charter
the whole of that amorphous entity which in contemporary political
theory might be thought of as "the state". Instead, they were to be
interpreted as references to what has traditionally been thought of as
the institutions of government -- those bodies and offices upon which
the Constitution confers power to make and enforce laws generally
applicable across the body politic."
----------
Supreme Court of Canada
Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union
One need only think of the history of social stagnation in Eastern
Europe and of the role played in its development and preservation by
officially established "free" trade unions, peace movements and
cultural organizations to appreciate the destructive effect forced
association can have upon the body politic.
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual
consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some
common purpose.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or
unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q. v.) a nation,
(q. v.) or a body politic. (q. v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.
----------
Readers!!! To understand the "law" is the understanding of
CORPORATIONS and their corporate structures. And of course it is with
this understanding that we see that regardless of its subset,
"natural" or "artificial", a PERSON simply denotes a FICTITIOUS
"entity" (legal personality) found within the fictitious realm of a
corporation and this is what Porisky fails to understand. Indeed,
according to the expert testimony of Patrick Healy, professor of law
at McGill University, a CORPORATION by DEFINITION is a FICTION which
can be referred, without impropriety, to a FICTITIOUS ENTITY.
----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=652689&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=1
In the 37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSIONS, speaking before the 91st meeting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on the subject
of Corporate criminal liability, Professor Patrick Healy, professor of
law at McGill University had this to say....
"A final point, because I know you wanted to limit us, Mr. Chairman,
to ten minutes, is that there is no definition in this legislation of
what a corporation is. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a
partial definition, but by no means is it a complete definition. Does
it include, for example, partnerships? Does it include different kinds
of what are called in French personnes morales that might exist in the
civil law of both the common law provinces and Quebec? It would be
impossible for Parliament, in my view, to pass legislation dealing
with corporate criminal liability in the absence of a comprehensive
definition of corporate bodies that could be found liable."
---
"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?"
----------
To further see the FICTITIOUS nature of a "natural person" is through
the doctrine of coverture. The doctrine of coverture is best described
as.. "Vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona. Husband and wife are
considered one person in law. Co. Litt. 112." that is, when a man and
a woman were married, they were regarded as one person in law and
since we are talking about the word person associated to a man
(mankind), we can say that the law regarded them as one natural
person. That's right, two people, one "natural person".
"No, in old law a WIFE was an artificial person subject to the rules
and distinctions of civil law." - Abbot the Retard
More LIES from Abbot the Retard trying to hide the fictitious nature
of a "natural person". The wife was NOT an "artificial person" in
fact, the wife was NOT even considered a PERSON in her own right. She
could only ACT under his person.
----------
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of
the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs
every thing; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert;
is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of
her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage
is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of an union of person in
husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and
disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.
...
VI. A SIXTH method of acquiring property in goods and and chattels is
by marriage; whereby those chattels, which belonged formerly to the
wife, are by act of law vested in the husband, with the same degree of
property and with the same powers, as the wife, when sole, had over
them.
THIS depends entirely on the notion of an unity of person between the
husband and wife; it being held that they are one person in law,9 so
that the very being and existence of the woman is suspended during the
coverture, or entirely merged and incorporated in that of the husband.
And hence if follows, that whatever personal property belonged to the
wife, before marriage, is by marriage absolutely vested in the
husband.
...
The wife cannot recover damages for beating her husband, for she has
no separate interest in any thing during her coverture.
----------
A DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893)
A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence
Husband.
...At common law, husband and wife are one person at law, and he is
that person; that is, the legal existence of the woman is suspended or
at least incorporated into that of the husband, under whose protection
she performs everything.
----------
encyclopedia.com
husband and wife
Section: Evolution of Marriage Law
Related: Law
The former Anglo-American law of marriage was chiefly characterized by
the view that husband and wife are one legal personality, for whom the
husband acts.
----------
From above we learn that a man's person denotes a legal existence, a
legal personality, one that can be suspended, one that can be
incorporated and consolidated into that of another resulting in only
ONE legal existence, one legal personality. And of course, it is only
with a legal personality/person that one can act or hold property. The
statement "the wife's legal existence was suspended during the
marriage and merged into that of the husband" does not indicate that a
human being is suspended and merged into another human being. No sir,
as we all know that this is physically impossible. It is the legal
existence, the legal personality, the person of a human being in law
that is suspended and merged into that of the husband's "person".
----------
1 D.L.R. 80
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Macdonald, C.J.A., Irving, and Galliher, JJ.A.
January 9, 1912
1. BARRISTER (Section I A - 6) - RIGHT TO PRACTICE - ADMITTING WOMEN
AS BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - LEGAL
PROFESSIONS ACT (B.C.).
"That was the position then; but before that it was laid down in the
Mirror of Justice, a work issued at the time of William the Conqueror,
"femes ne poient estre attorneys," ch. 5, secs. 1 and 3 -- Pulling, p.
9. Nor could they be articled because they were not sui juris.
Marriage, by the common law of England (which we took over as of 19th
November, 1858) merged the persona of the wife in that of the husband,
and operated as a gift to the husband of the enjoyment of every kind
of property of which she was possessed during the coverture -- an
absolute right to the personal estate; a right to her choses in action
if he reduced them into possession; and a right to the rents and
profits of her real estate"
----------
Supreme Court of Canada
M. v. H.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1999/vol2/html/1999scr2_0003.html
In 1964, the Ontario Law Reform Commission was charged with the task
of producing a comprehensive report and recommendations on the reform
of family law in Ontario. That Report, in six volumes, was released in
1975. In the foreword to its report on family property law, the
Commission made note of the context in which it had been asked to make
recommendations (Report on Family Law, Part IV, "Family Property
Law" (1974), at pp. 4-5):
The common law doctrine of unity of husband and wife, with the
consequent extinguishment of the wife's legal personality and vesting
of her property and right to her income in her husband, was
necessarily accompanied by the concept of the dependency of the
married woman. The Married Women's Property Acts have terminated most
of the incidents of the unity of legal personality in the marital
relation, but the dependency of the wife is still very much a fact in
twentieth-century Ontario. On a secular basis, marriage can be
characterized as an economic arrangement that assumes this dependency
of the wife upon the husband with a legal framework that is designed
to provide a remedy for the wife if the husband's obligation to
maintain her is not properly discharged. [Footnotes omitted, emphasis
added.]
----------
As clearly articulated above, it is a persona, a legal personality
that is being merged resulting in but one persona, one person, and
since we're talking about a man's person, one NATURAL PERSON.
Readers, all of this is explained in great detail at the following
website!
The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org