food for thought

[LionsShare]

cheers Pitano1 for your posting:
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5519-urgent-announcement-recon-vid

[pitano1]

Hi...l.s
No problem.

While I`m here, I would like to thank lamani for his thoughts+his help/advice...cheers bro.
kind regards
to all
pitano

ps...https://www.fmotl.com/info/EverythingFullyExplained.mp4

[iamani]

Hi pitano1

Seasonal greetings to all!

Thanks for the kind words buddy! Rest assured that all exchange of thoughts between us has been mutually beneficial, as have the exchanges between LionsShare and myself - and i must say it's good to see you posting here and there again. Your offered insight into the 'health' legislation is very revealing!

Oh, and thanks for posting that video link here - for some reason the one on goodf.forumotion wouldn't work for me.

Take care - and best of luck to all in the 'interesting times' ahead...

Christmas cheers!

[LionsShare]

I also would like to thank iamani for all info given, certainly been very helpful.

Merry Xmas & happy new year to all

LS

[iamani]

Hi LionsShare

Thank you - much appreciated!

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

i saw this extract on another site...

"Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if— "

...and although i have seen it before, this time a phrase leapt to my attention:

"...the powers and privileges of a constable..."

We know what his "powers" are  -  they are the same as ours ie the power to arrest/detain any one he sees or reasonably suspects of breaching the common-law  -  but wtf is he doing with "privileges"?

Privilege  =  private agreement  =  private contract  =  private law 

...and:

Maxim: Private agreement supercedes the law...

i've also heard it said that the enforcement of acts/statutes/statutory-instruments Is a 'private agreement' between the judicial and executive branches of government...

...and whereas every privilege has benefits attached i think the question  -  'What exactly are the privileges attached to the office of 'constable' ?'  -  may produce interesting/admissible answers via FOIA...

...after all, how can we discern 'improper exercise' of a constable's 'privileges' if we don't know what those privileges are...?

...and should T.H.E.Y. refuse to divulge such information upon request is that not lawful excuse under contract law to not deal with 'police constables' ?

We're not done yet though  -  read it again:

"(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if— "

Firstly, why does it not say:

"...a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a police constable..."  ?

...and if we focus on this:

"...a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable..."

...do you see the subtle distinction being made here between 'a police constable' and 'a constable' ? The inference being that a 'police constable' and a 'constable' are not one and the same thing... they are not 'identical'. The same distinction is repeated here:

"...(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—..."

...and here:

"...(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7)..."

...and here:

"...(6)The first case is where—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—..."

...and here:

"...(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable, ..."

Does this not provably evidence the difference between 'police officer' and 'constable' that has long been stated on this site (and others)?

Given we know that in issuing tickets/penalties each police officer is acting in commerce, it appears to be telling us that each holder of the office 'constable' privately (ie not publically declared) agrees to use the powers attached to said office in the service of commercial interests as a matter of privilege... for instance as in using the common-law dispensation to allow that motorists should slow down and or move over (ie give way) to let an emergency 'vehicle' pass if its coloured-lights are flashing and or sirens blaring. Under the common-law we are under no obligation to cede right-of-way to any one or body  -  but it is a courtesy allowed for 'the common good'... nowhere in legislation or the highway code does it provide/state that authority is granted for use of said lights-and-sirens in order to inflict misery... pardon me... to 'conduct commerce' ie enforce statutes  -  and that is just one example serving to clarify the bait-and-switch the police pull every time they engage with us.

How does this work?

Well, as far as i can tell, and using the same example, it's because one of a constable's powers is licence to 'attract the attention' of someone (not some 'body' - an important distinction!) they reasonably suspect of causing harm damage or loss (or are witness to same) to another someone, offering man-acting-as-constable a level of immunity/protection from any claims that may arise for doing so.

The (common-law) office of Constable has authority over (felonious) man. The (administrative) office of Police Constable does not, but (as a servant/agent of the Crown) he does have right-of-administration (authority) over those who claim ownership of Crown-copyright property (ie the ALLCAPS legal-fiction-name ie the 'member' of the public  -  the artificial, 'public' self)  -  which is why the first thing they want/need you to do is identify with 'your' (but really 'T.H.E.I.R.') public-self via three data-points  -  the NAME, the ADDRESS, and the D.O.B. - providing 'join-dur' ie legal-agreement/consent. If one does so then one immediately cedes one's right to natural/common-law jurisdiction in favour of the private legal/administrative, un-natural/un-common jurisdiction from which the same actor operates as a matter of 'privilege'  -  which legally negates the actor's liability for his abuse/"improper-exercise" of "the powers and privileges of a constable"... and all by one's own consent to believe/accept the illusion!

"It's a kind of magic..."
(F. Mercury, R.I.P.)

If one does not identify, and knows how to hold the 'officer' to account, said 'officer' is extremely vulnerable to claims of fraud, tort and trespass... for in holding both office of Constable and Police Constable simultaneously, a man can choose (for personal gain) to abuse the entrusted power of one (common-law) office in order to give the illusion that the other (administrative) office holds the same authority, when in fact and at/in law it does not - and the key word here is: 'choose'. Every time he does so he risks a charge of common-law fraud - and one's knowledge of this fact in itself could provide remedy...

...but remember - both scripture and common-sense tell us that man cannot serve two masters without ensuing conflict of interest, but only common-sense offers censure/sanction to an 'office' serving two masters...

Given all of the above, imo the following is shown to be b.s. rather than the means to hold certain public servants to account that it is presented as -

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.


Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

Common misconceptions...

What is the difference between the terms 'the World' and 'the Earth'  -  and is it useful to know the difference?

Whilst 'the Earth' describes the physical realm, that which we commonly call 'reality', the term 'the World' is used as an umbrella term for the layers of fiction man places over reality to create (and control!) a common illusion, thus:

'The World' = the common illusion

'The Earth' = the physical reality

Also, we take the words 'earth' and 'land' to be synonymous - but are they? i don't think so. The term 'land' is one of those aforementioned 'layers of fiction' within the common illusion in that it describes an interest in and/or rightful claim to a specified portion of the earth along with all livestock (us) 'attached' to it...

So the 'end of the world' is not the destruction of the physical plane but the shattering of the common illusion that happens at the end of every Age... and is that not what we see now...?

As another example take a look at the words 'lawful' and 'legal'.

Maxim: "Legality is not reality"

To me, this maxim implies that reality is governed by true Law whilst it is the illusion ie 'the World' that is ruled by legal construct... aka our 'private agreement' to pretend that the illusion is the true/superior reality. The instant we step outside of the true Law is the moment we enter the binding and blinding illusion of legal construct  -  'the World'.

i've noticed one or two YT gurus claim that equity is the superior/true Law  -  but is it? As far as i know, equity exists only to compel performance from wayward trustees and fiduciaries. Granted my knowledge of the subject is miniscule, but isn't that what happens to us in mags courts? Are we not treated as wayward trustees/fiduciaries to be compelled into performance of obligations? If one imagines statutes as t+c's of contract/agreement, are the mags not compelling performance when one is charged with breach of statutes? Is that too much of a stretch? i've also read somewhere that mags can handle any equity case valued at less than 10k... and isn't there a trust construed (CQV) in every/most mags case(s)? Aren't trusts dealt with in the realm of equity? Imagine how much they make if every case is valued at 10k... and whereas the business of the court is the trading of securities, perhaps they also hypothecate...?

Equity  =  vested interest ?

Here's how one YT guru puts equity:

"Common law is ruled and governed by equity - equity is the soul and the spirit of the law! Eye have a quote here for yew - to back up what I'm saying Eye hath given ye above my NOI – Notice of Intent that Common law is ruled and governed by equity -and that equity is the soul and the spirit of the law! And so now eye david give ye my SOI – Statement of Interest to backup and clarify my claim that equity is higher than aspects of common law! Here is one proof, the following quote is from the American or institutes of American law 1882 by John Bouvier. Quote; Soul and Spirt of the Law: Equity “Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without Law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon, in some manner, as an assistance for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses, are useful for those who are short-sighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; Positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it.” – Institutes of American Law 1882, Vol. 2, s. 3724, para. 4.” by John Bouvier. Equity is not law, equity is the sole in the spirit of the law – kapeesh? The rights and Spirit of Equity are identified as and embody the very energy of righteousness. Equity supersedes common law as well as statute law, but yew will have a run-around trying to establish a court of Equity. In Equity the judge would make a ruling or decision based on the principalities of what the fair and just decision would be. Invoking Equity in the courts would simply be to bring justice, to bring grace and mercy. The law cannot be fulfilled without Equity because Equity is love, and love is all. Do yew want to follow the written word of the law in the commercial world of the dead? Or…. Do yew want to walk in peace, love, and Equity as a living light on the land?..."

Now i'm not sure i agree with all that, but like i said  -  a full understanding of equity so far eludes me, but he now enters ground i find more familiar. Spoiler alert  -  this next part is completely wrong:

"...Now initiates let us look once again at Christs teachings - here is another analogy from the HelioCentricBibliotheque KJV 1611 authorised version. John 8:7 - 16 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. Christ wasn't operating at a common law level above, do yew sea? Christ went against the law of the land which said that they get to stone the lady to death! As she was out $%£”%!! with somebody else when she wasn't supposed to be! Christ was operating within equitable terms Christ was using the maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity” That doesn't mean exactly what it says. What that means is, within equity yew have rights, your substantive rights are held in equity, yew have to remember that if you're seeking equity yew have to also abide by equity! Remember that the other side has rights too, if yew come in as the plaintiff or if yew decide to come in as the beneficiary and hold the trustee to account for non-performance of a trust, yew must remember that the trustee has rights too! And that's what Christ shows ye in John 8:7 Christ was operating with the soul and the spirit of the law, he was operating within equity. Clean hands doctrine - Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor of Provinces of Judea, Idumaea, and Samaria between 26 and 37 AD. He was best known for his leadership of Judea."

Nope. Sorry David, this passage has got fek-all to do with the "soul and spirit of the law" and everything to do with the letter of the law and i can prove it...

In verse immediately prior to this one, the people are goading Jesus into following the law and to condone/authorise the stoning of an adulteress, but, knowing the law better than those goading him, he exemplifies his exhortation to be "...wise as serpent, gentle as dove". He outwits the crowd by following the law to the letter... he follows due process and convenes a court to hear the matter. Now, the law states that both parties to the adultery must be killed  -  not just the woman. When Jesus crouches and writes in the dust he is listing all of those involved in the matter ie the alleged adulterers and the witnesses, that all may see justice is being done. When he suggests that 'he who is without sin' should cast the first stone, he is not appealing to the crowd's conscience in that they have all sinned at some point and should therefore show grace of mercy  -  no! With that one line he put the absolute shits up the witnesses/accusators who by now have noticed that there is a blank space in the dust where the male adulterer's name should be... remember: "...thou shalt not bear false witness"! If they had hung around then THEY would have been exposed as law-breakers and suffered the very punishment they hoped to inflict upon the woman. So, off they slope  -  and when the crowd see the witnesses depart and slowly realise their error... off they slope too. At any time Jesus could have looked up and ordered them to stay put and be punished, but he keeps his head down and allows them to leave  -  wise as serpent, gentle as dove. This is The Way...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

A little while ago i recommended a YT channel: Hornseywood Academy; and i here repeat that recommendation. So far i have watched the first forty TT vids and a couple of the latest one's, and it has been very illuminating to say the least.

Miss it  -  miss out. That's all i'm saying.

One of the subjects covered is the ALLCAPS name, and what he is suggesting is brilliant  -  but only if you understand personal limitation...

On a separate note, it is also suggested that the NAME is an acronym, and knowing the definition of 'acronym' i was confused as to how this could be. After all, an acronym is made up of the initial letters of several words (abbreviations) but goes on to be commonly expressed as a word in its own right. For example:

N.A.S.A. ;  C.I.A. ; JOHN DOE.

N.A.S.A. is made up of the initial letters of four words, and we know this because of the full-stop placed after each (capital!) letter. We also know what the initials represent (North American Space Administration). This is good English. The correct pronunciation is to enunciate each letter separately and in this instance that involves four distinct syllables. This is not an acronym but a group of several abbreviations. However, people being as lazy in their speech as they are in their attention to their rights, rather than pronounce four syllables we reduce it to two and so create a 'new' word/expression/symbol known as an 'acronym', in this case N, A, S, A, becomes NASA pronounced 'naa-saa'.

C.I.A. is made up of the first letters of three words and comprises three syllables, but as there is no rolls-off-the-tongue way to abbreviate the abbreviation into its own word it has not become acronym and remains pronounced C, I, A.

JOHN DOE is harder to see as an acronym, but why? Firstly because we are unfamiliar with the necessary-original of J.O.H.N.D.O.E.  -  do you know what words the letters of 'your' NAME represent if it is an acronym? i don't. Is this recorded anywhere? Not to my knowledge. This fact should automatically disqualify JOHN DOE as an acronym, hence my confusion, but then it hit me...

In my efforts to study the use of ALLCAPS TEXT in (allegedly) legal documents it has occurred to me that our inability to put a defining name to it as a language hampers one's efforts tremendously. After all, that which bears no name must be lost and cannot be owned. A thing of no name can't be pinned down on paper and harnessed to one's needs... there being no possibility of written legal 'title' there can be no ownership or accountability.

So i decided to put a name to it, and that defining moniker is: 'Splang'.

Why?

Whereas the only way JOHN DOE can be pronounced as part of the English language is if each letter is enunciated separately ie J, O, H, N,  D, O, E, it is English language words but spelled-out. Remember how the po-po used to ask for your name  -  and then asked you to spell it...? If you do so, he can then 'spell-style' it on his paperwork in ALLCAPS and you are presumed to know that, in acceding to his request to 'spell', you have agreed to the conveyance of 'your' name to a different (and private) jurisdiction via change of language/diction.

This implies ALLCAPS to be:

a language of spells/spelling

...and so:

a spelling-language

...which abbreviates to:

spell-language

...and further abbreviates to:

'Splanguage'

...and may eventually be reduced to:

'Splang'.

...but this still does not explain the lack of words attached to the individual letters necessary to make JOHN DOE an acronym.

But...

...if we return to the earlier po-po analogy, how do they spell the name out over the radio?

(...there should be some light-bulbs a-poppin' and pennies a-droppin' right now!)

"Juliette Oscar Hotel November Delta Oscar Echo"

...sound familiar? And doesn't that look remarkably acronymical...?

But there's more...

The name given to that language is: 'Phonetic'; and that word is etymologically rooted in the name of an ancient country/State called 'Phoenicia' whose people were a sea-faring race given to going a-viking, and who built an empire of commerce on their sea-routes. The hub of the empire was a city-State known as 'Tyr' and when they conquered a people their methods of keeping the population subdued were so brutal and/or draconian that it became a by-word for such tactics ie 'tyr'-anny, and for ever after any world-leader employing such methods of population management would be labelled a 'tyr'-ant...

So you see, all the stuff about dog-Latin/pig-Latin may be a mis-direction of sorts... especially as the remnants of the collapsed Phoenician empire founded another city, a city of sea-faring MERCHANT-BANKERS! who became known as 'Venetians'... Which city - Venice - ain't too far from Rome, now is it...?

'Phoenician/phonetic splang' is the language of 'Tyr'-ants engaged in 'Tyr'-anny through commerce and illusion - yes?

i'd like to thank you :craig-michael, for putting so much useful info out there free-of-charge and for the epiphanies i have experienced in studying said info. If you should be reading this then be advised: i have something for you in return! In ep.40 of TT, someone asks a (very important!) question to which you have the decency to admit you don't know the answer - well, i have a couple of nuggets of info that might help you answer that question and gain further insight into what you have so far discovered and revealed. i intend to keep watching TT - if you see this and your interest is piqued, just write 'iamani' in the description of a subsequent TT vid and i will pass the info on to you. Kudos. (Ooh, and is there any chance you'll do a third episode of 'Switching Perceptions? i've been waiting...)

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

Who is God?

Well... that would be 'me'  -  and although 'i' is one with God, 'my self' is not...

Let's consider some evidence...

1) "The Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

Without 'me' there can be no words. All words emanate from 'me'.

2) God must be worshipped...

Worship = serve/work-for.

So... who do people (OF ANY RELIGION!) primarily serve/work-for in this third dimension?

They first serve 'me'... everyone must and does serve 'me' before all others. They feed 'me', clothe 'me', pamper 'me'... they do all this before anything or anyone else gets a look-in, because:

3) ...to neglect 'me' is death!

Just try not feeding/watering 'me' for a while...

4) It's even a Commandment - "Thou shalt worship no other god before 'me'..."

Does that not make 'me' God...?

...and remember  - 

5) "No one comes to the Father but through 'me' " !

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

Here's an odd one...

Given that we know use of franked mail is to avoid jurisdiction of the UPU for fear of falling foul of its mail fraud regulations (and with good reason!) what would be the outcome if instead of returning to sender we took the offending (and unopened) item to the post office, put a stamp on it and ask the teller to be sure to cancel the stamp with the postmark before she puts it in the sack...?

Within a day or two we would have the same letter back...

...doubtless full of the usual fraudulent nonsense...

...and so evidence of mail-fraud to present to the UPU.

The more astute of those reading this might first think that as the recipient has stamped and posted the letter, that he/she is in fact responsible for the fraudulent transmission... but is that true...?

After all, the letter is still sealed... one doesn't know if it contains fraudulent claims or not until it's opened...

...which removes 'mens rea' from the recipient...

...and if the contents constitute fraudulent activity...

...then what can the issuer of the utterance say in his defence?

Something like "Yes, we know we sent out fraudulent nonsense  -  but we didn’t intend it to enter UPU jurisdiction..." 

???

...wouldn't that be admissible evidence?

Cheers!