Hi LionsShare
You're very welcome, i'm glad you found them helpful. i'm still working on the new 'know thyself' post, will link when done.
Cheers!
food for thought
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:42 pm
Greetings
This is, as usual, only an opinion. It is not legal advice - it's just a bit of fun...
It is said that "He who seeks equity must DO equity."
...and this can be used to extricate oneself from admiralty charges. Ideally this should be done with one's paperwork before any hearing but if not then all is not necessarily lost. Eg, if one is charged with a 'criminal offence' and there is no victim, this tells us that the charge is being applied/enforced via admiralty - which means it is a matter of contract/agreement and in reality a civil charge rather than a 'crime'. The court is barred from revealing this fact.
If one can expose the absurdity (cough 'fraud' cough...) of the pantomime that is a mags-admiralty hearing of 'criminal' charges - without disrespecting the (ahem) 'court' - then one is on the way to a dismissal (imo).
How?
Try using a maxim! Perhaps this one:
Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil matters it is otherwise. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2211.
Now, i know that there are those of us who have already tried to use the essence of this maxim to no avail, but sometimes, as Funboy3 and Bananarama pointed out way back in the 80's: "It ain't what you do but the way that you do it" which makes the difference - ie "that's what gets results!". (Don't try to fight it - just enjoy the earworm... and for those who choose to look-up the referenced pop song and hear it for the first time - you're welcome.)
Let’s take as an example a charge of driving without insurance - what they call a 'strict-liability' offence. This basically means one has no defence ie either one had insurance in place at time of stop or one didn't. A sticky situation i myself experienced several years ago.
Apparently, one may challenge jurisdiction AT ANY POINT DURING PROCEEDINGS! ...and such a challenge must be dealt with before the court may move on. One may use this to one's advantage. Remember - AT ANY POINT DURING PROCEEDINGS! So:
A name is called to the dock.
Court usher: "Calling JOHN HENRY DOE..."
Man: "i am here on that matter, but i see a problem over jurisdiction - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Judge: "Are you JOHN HENRY DOE?"
Man: "Forgive me, but does the judge hear the question before the court? i repeat - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Judge: "Perhaps after your identity is confirmed - are you JOHN HENRY DOE?"
Man: "Forgive me, but for the third time of asking - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Whereas one is being polite and courteous, and only asking a fair and reasonable question, and whereas one has asked three times, the judge is bound to either answer the question or dismiss the charges. He can't say 'no' to that question without exposing his true intent...
Judge: "What is it about the charges that you don't understand?"
Man: "Thank you. Is it true that this is a charge for a 'criminal offence'?"
Judge: "Yes..."
Man: "Is it also true that an act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty; and that this maxim applies only to criminal cases and in civil matters it is otherwise?"
...so now he's stuck. He can't give a yes/no answer. If he says 'no' he's just denied a maxim - not good for him as one is then within one's rights to demand a competency hearing for the judge. If he says maxims do not apply to this case one simply asks for proof of claim - he would then have to reveal the jurisdiction of the hearing (a big no-no). If he says 'yes' then we have our opening... he's not going to give a yes or no so all he has left is bluff and bluster, at which point one would merely state the question twice more. At which point he will either throw his hand in and find a 'technicality' on which to dismiss, or he will call one's bluff...
Judge: "That is generally true..."
...there are now several ways for one to proceed. Let's apply a bit of logic...
Man: "Thank you. Will the intent of the accused in this case be considered here today?"
Judge: "...er... no. This is a strict-liability offence..."
Man: "Thank you. So given your agreement that an act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty, and your agreement that this maxim applies only to criminal cases and that in civil matters it is otherwise - and also given that you say the intent of the accused is not to be considered in this case - would that, according to the maxim, not make this a civil matter...?"
...and now he's really stuck. What can he say without giving the game away by stating that this maxim doesn't apply in this jurisdiction? He can't charge you with contempt for politely asking relevant questions (and if he did then one might ask if the contempt charge is of civil or criminal nature...) and he obviously can't answer that question with a yes or a no... but let's say he tries some more bluff and bluster to indicate a response in the negative...
Judge: "blah bullshit blah... no"
Man: "Forgive me, now i am even more confused. Is it true that there are only two jurisdictions that may deal with cases of a criminal nature, and that only one of said jurisdictions requires there to be a flesh-and-blood victim?"
...the two jurisdictions referred to are common-law and Admiralty. Again, he's in a spot. Should he say yes...
Judge: "Yes..."
Man: "Thank you. In which of those two jurisdictions is this hearing to be conducted?"
...and we're done. Case dismissed. If one had to pay to retrieve one's car then present an invoice with a copy of the receipt. If the car is still impounded then request a court order for its return. However, should he say no...
Judge: "No, there are more than two."
Man: "Thank you. In which of those jurisdictions is this hearing to be conducted?"
...et voila! He cannot reveal the jurisdiction without then being 'retired' - but just for the record, if he does state jurisdiction as admiralty then...
Man: "Thank you. Is it true that said jurisdiction requires consent evidenced in the form of an agreement of some sort?"
Judge: "Oh shit... i want my mum!"
...ok, so he won't say that - but i promise you that is what he's thinking!
Man: "...and is there such an agreement in evidence before the court today...?
...and it's time to go home!
Of course, having referenced that particular maxim and gained the judge's agreement that it is true, there is a much simpler question one could ask...
Man: "What sort of legal-fiction-person is capable of intent?"
Cheers!
This is, as usual, only an opinion. It is not legal advice - it's just a bit of fun...
It is said that "He who seeks equity must DO equity."
...and this can be used to extricate oneself from admiralty charges. Ideally this should be done with one's paperwork before any hearing but if not then all is not necessarily lost. Eg, if one is charged with a 'criminal offence' and there is no victim, this tells us that the charge is being applied/enforced via admiralty - which means it is a matter of contract/agreement and in reality a civil charge rather than a 'crime'. The court is barred from revealing this fact.
If one can expose the absurdity (cough 'fraud' cough...) of the pantomime that is a mags-admiralty hearing of 'criminal' charges - without disrespecting the (ahem) 'court' - then one is on the way to a dismissal (imo).
How?
Try using a maxim! Perhaps this one:
Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil matters it is otherwise. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2211.
Now, i know that there are those of us who have already tried to use the essence of this maxim to no avail, but sometimes, as Funboy3 and Bananarama pointed out way back in the 80's: "It ain't what you do but the way that you do it" which makes the difference - ie "that's what gets results!". (Don't try to fight it - just enjoy the earworm... and for those who choose to look-up the referenced pop song and hear it for the first time - you're welcome.)
Let’s take as an example a charge of driving without insurance - what they call a 'strict-liability' offence. This basically means one has no defence ie either one had insurance in place at time of stop or one didn't. A sticky situation i myself experienced several years ago.
Apparently, one may challenge jurisdiction AT ANY POINT DURING PROCEEDINGS! ...and such a challenge must be dealt with before the court may move on. One may use this to one's advantage. Remember - AT ANY POINT DURING PROCEEDINGS! So:
A name is called to the dock.
Court usher: "Calling JOHN HENRY DOE..."
Man: "i am here on that matter, but i see a problem over jurisdiction - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Judge: "Are you JOHN HENRY DOE?"
Man: "Forgive me, but does the judge hear the question before the court? i repeat - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Judge: "Perhaps after your identity is confirmed - are you JOHN HENRY DOE?"
Man: "Forgive me, but for the third time of asking - would it please the court to help me to understand the charges?"
Whereas one is being polite and courteous, and only asking a fair and reasonable question, and whereas one has asked three times, the judge is bound to either answer the question or dismiss the charges. He can't say 'no' to that question without exposing his true intent...
Judge: "What is it about the charges that you don't understand?"
Man: "Thank you. Is it true that this is a charge for a 'criminal offence'?"
Judge: "Yes..."
Man: "Is it also true that an act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty; and that this maxim applies only to criminal cases and in civil matters it is otherwise?"
...so now he's stuck. He can't give a yes/no answer. If he says 'no' he's just denied a maxim - not good for him as one is then within one's rights to demand a competency hearing for the judge. If he says maxims do not apply to this case one simply asks for proof of claim - he would then have to reveal the jurisdiction of the hearing (a big no-no). If he says 'yes' then we have our opening... he's not going to give a yes or no so all he has left is bluff and bluster, at which point one would merely state the question twice more. At which point he will either throw his hand in and find a 'technicality' on which to dismiss, or he will call one's bluff...
Judge: "That is generally true..."
...there are now several ways for one to proceed. Let's apply a bit of logic...
Man: "Thank you. Will the intent of the accused in this case be considered here today?"
Judge: "...er... no. This is a strict-liability offence..."
Man: "Thank you. So given your agreement that an act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty, and your agreement that this maxim applies only to criminal cases and that in civil matters it is otherwise - and also given that you say the intent of the accused is not to be considered in this case - would that, according to the maxim, not make this a civil matter...?"
...and now he's really stuck. What can he say without giving the game away by stating that this maxim doesn't apply in this jurisdiction? He can't charge you with contempt for politely asking relevant questions (and if he did then one might ask if the contempt charge is of civil or criminal nature...) and he obviously can't answer that question with a yes or a no... but let's say he tries some more bluff and bluster to indicate a response in the negative...
Judge: "blah bullshit blah... no"
Man: "Forgive me, now i am even more confused. Is it true that there are only two jurisdictions that may deal with cases of a criminal nature, and that only one of said jurisdictions requires there to be a flesh-and-blood victim?"
...the two jurisdictions referred to are common-law and Admiralty. Again, he's in a spot. Should he say yes...
Judge: "Yes..."
Man: "Thank you. In which of those two jurisdictions is this hearing to be conducted?"
...and we're done. Case dismissed. If one had to pay to retrieve one's car then present an invoice with a copy of the receipt. If the car is still impounded then request a court order for its return. However, should he say no...
Judge: "No, there are more than two."
Man: "Thank you. In which of those jurisdictions is this hearing to be conducted?"
...et voila! He cannot reveal the jurisdiction without then being 'retired' - but just for the record, if he does state jurisdiction as admiralty then...
Man: "Thank you. Is it true that said jurisdiction requires consent evidenced in the form of an agreement of some sort?"
Judge: "Oh shit... i want my mum!"
...ok, so he won't say that - but i promise you that is what he's thinking!
Man: "...and is there such an agreement in evidence before the court today...?
...and it's time to go home!
Of course, having referenced that particular maxim and gained the judge's agreement that it is true, there is a much simpler question one could ask...
Man: "What sort of legal-fiction-person is capable of intent?"
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:51 pm
Greetings
We are binary in nature... or more accurately, we are binary-in-nature.
('Bina' = intelligence)
The terms 'man' and 'woman' have nothing to do with physical gender ie male and female.
None of us are 'man' or 'woman' as each of us are 'man-and-woman'.
i wonder if that is the true basis of alchemy, and perhaps Gnosis? A subtle conveyance of hidden knowledge that we might know again that which we once were...?
We each have two 'i's' - we have the 'mind-i' which is the 'i' of the aura or the light-body-i; and the 'sensual-i'; which is the 'i' of the flesh or the dark-body-i.
By itself, the dark-body-i is incapable of evil; it acts only according to its animal nature and its desires are limited to the necessities of self-continuation ie eat, excrete, repeat and reproduce. It may be territorial - but that's life.
By itself, the light-body-i is incapable of evil as although it has a capacity for interest it is incapable of 'feeling' desire.
It is only the union of the two 'i' that facilitates potential exemplification of evil.
Man must control woman to ensure mutual benefit.
Intelligent-self must bridle the sensual-self.
Woman must serve man in order, to avert disaster.
Cheers!
We are binary in nature... or more accurately, we are binary-in-nature.
('Bina' = intelligence)
The terms 'man' and 'woman' have nothing to do with physical gender ie male and female.
None of us are 'man' or 'woman' as each of us are 'man-and-woman'.
i wonder if that is the true basis of alchemy, and perhaps Gnosis? A subtle conveyance of hidden knowledge that we might know again that which we once were...?
We each have two 'i's' - we have the 'mind-i' which is the 'i' of the aura or the light-body-i; and the 'sensual-i'; which is the 'i' of the flesh or the dark-body-i.
By itself, the dark-body-i is incapable of evil; it acts only according to its animal nature and its desires are limited to the necessities of self-continuation ie eat, excrete, repeat and reproduce. It may be territorial - but that's life.
By itself, the light-body-i is incapable of evil as although it has a capacity for interest it is incapable of 'feeling' desire.
It is only the union of the two 'i' that facilitates potential exemplification of evil.
Man must control woman to ensure mutual benefit.
Intelligent-self must bridle the sensual-self.
Woman must serve man in order, to avert disaster.
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:07 pm
Greetings
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other god before me
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
John 10:27-30
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.
WARNING! Reading this might induce schizophrenia...
In my efforts to fulfil the biblical exhortation to 'know thyself' i thought i'd take a closer look at the actual words... and... erm - i may have gotten a bit carried away...
'know':
Is the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' a description of the Gnostic doctrine? Is LORD God commanding that man wilfully remain in ignorance, and if so - ignorance of what...?
A ' tree' (imo) is a family/patriarchy/matriarchy - roots, branches and fruit; a his-story/account of a tribe or, on a larger scale... a count-tree...? a census-ed race of 'people'...? Ancest -tree...?
So:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'the people/race/account of the knowledge of good and evil'
'Knowledge' is the internal ledger of one's experiences - all of one's 'nows' available for consideration; also, from a description under a Robert Sepehr YT vid on the Lost Gospel of Thomas:
"Gnosis literally means "knowledge", in the context of a spiritual knowledge, or divine insight, emerging directly from the inside, such as an inner voice, a gut feeling, or conscience; not dependent on any priests, or external influence."
This strikes me as having much relevance to the subtle story of the hidden characters portrayed in the 'fall of man' narrative of KJV Gen 3.
We have 'And the serpent' (flesh) as the 'gut feeling', 'Now the serpent' (bone) as the 'conscience' (?), and or possibly as the 'inner voice' of the woman under temptation. Also:
"Gnosis literally means "knowledge"..."
So then:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'...the people/race/account of the divine-spiritual-insight of good and evil...'
The next one's a good one, literally - well, kind of...
'good'
Forget the common perception of the meaning of this word - at least in this context, 'coz it doesn't mean what you think it does. In this context (imo) 'good' is the singular of 'goods', which is defined as: the property of merchants; in which case we can take it as:
'good' = a desirable item/example; a tradeable/saleable commodity; time/credit/life; bone (bona/bene/bone is Latin for 'good'); a temptation; a (potential) corruptor.
'and' = a co-ordinating subjunctive; flesh.
'evil' = unchecked desire; a stealing of time;
(Be advised: 'good and evil' are not polar opposites; it is not the same as 'right and wrong' )
So if we go with 'and' as a mere co-ordinating subjunctive:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'...the people/race/account of the divine-spiritual-insight of desirable item and unchecked desire...'
Or to put it another way:
'...the people/race/account of the expert-intuitive-administration of BENEFIT and PRIVILEGE...'
(...mind i don't say this is the only interpretation)
Couple that with this:
KJV Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
"...thou shalt SURELY DIE." = thou shalt become SURETY for DEBT... a DEBT-SLAVE!
...and is 'debt' not the result of credit, just as death is the result of life? Consider:
Time = life = credit
Which might imply:
tree of life = tree of credit = tree of the knowledge of good and evil
...which surprised me.
Ok, i'm sure it's obvious how we get 'benefit' from 'good' and 'debt' from death/'die' and even 'surety' from 'surely' - but how does 'privilege' equate to 'evil'...?
To undo 'God's Law' is an act of evil - 'evil' is not an entity, it is not a 'self', it is a capacity. 'Evil' describes an act, it is not something capable of independent/autonomous action. One may choose or be tempted to perform acts of evil, but one may never 'be' evil. Such temptation is labelled 'desire'... and 'desire' is a capacity for theft.
'Evil' is unchecked-desire, and to undo 'God's Law' is an act of unchecked-desire...
Privilege = private law = contract = legal;
Legality is not reality...
Legal = the undoing of 'God's Law' = an act of unchecked-desire = Evil
So 'LORD God' may seem to be saying:
"Stay away from legal experts who 'know' your true provenance and worth and how you are enticed into debt-servitude for mere benefits"
Or worse:
"Stay away from the slave-traders"
...or could it possibly mean:
'...the race of master merchants...?
Or my current favorite:
'Stay away from those who keep records from the first agreement...'
Before Eden, Man and Woman (nothing to do with male and female, more 'master and servant') were one And, the same. The LORD God merely split title to man into 'man' and 'woman' and so created imo a new status in law for something already in existence. The term 'Woman' describes another fiction and didn't exist in KJV Gen 1. Perhaps this information is what the Woman took and shared with Man, and it shocked both of them out of the stupefying slumber previously imposed upon 'them' by LORD God... and after a major cog-diss from the first ever shared 'red-pill' (fruit of the tree ie debt) they now 'know' - that the LORD God is NOT divine, is NOT their friend and NOT their 'Father'...! All of which seems to align with Gnostic doctrine.
Oh dear... substitute 'LORD God' for 'CORPORATE Government' and isn't this sounding relevant to our own age, right now?
It appears that LORD God stealthily co-opted/corrupted Man (previously property of 'And God') because he had his own purpose for Man, as follows:
KJV Gen 2:5
"...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
...and after all the shenanigans in Eden:
KJV Gen 3:23
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
All that - just to engineer a situation where Man is obliged to do what the LORD God wanted him to do ie 'till the ground'? LORD God may be less divine and more Machiavellian methinks...
...and we might want to consider more carefully the word: 'till'.
Till = toil, dig the soil;
Or:
Till = register.
Is man told to dig the soil, or is he told to register the L'and...?
Anyway - that's it for 'know' for now. Let's take a look at:
'thyself'...
First of all - what is a 'self'...?
Self = (one's) state of being; (the S-entient E-nergetic L-iving F-iction, if you will - or even S-entient E-nergetic L-ife F-orce, if you prefer.)
Therefore:
Thyself = thy state of being.
Simple, right? i'm happy; i'm sad; i'm hot; i'm cold; i'm in love... the point being - i'm always using 'something-going-on-inside' to describe 'myself', which is how it should be... the 'i am' is one's ego.
...but it's a bit more complicated than that. Turns out our 'state of being' is easy to hot-wire and hijack if we are suitably indoctrinated. The problem comes when one assumes the habit of externalising one's 'self' ie i am a lumberjack; i am a footballer; i am a policeman... because now one is 'acting', ie performing a role in a scene for an act of a play... one has now assumed an externalised ego/self corresponding to that which one 'does' rather than how one 'is'/'feels', ie a mask, and:
Mask = persona...
...which puts us on the slippery-slope. At this 'stage' we are yet one step away from legal-servitude as a legal 'person'/corporation... so what is that last step?
It is another step taken in our sleepwalk to incorporation...
Three requirements to define a corporation:
1) two or more people come together
2) for a common purpose, and
3) under a common name.
Have you ever pondered the significance and implications of the terms: "me, myself and i" ? No? Well, you've probably got a life... but it seems important if one wishes to 'know thyself' so i tried it... and immediately heard the sound of music ie "...me, a name i call myself..." - which is probably due to word-association (football...) what with the name DOE coming up shortly, but then i thought of this:
'i myself will lay me down...'
All three subject terms are evidenced in that line, and it seems clear that 'i' decides, that 'me' is one's physical aspect, and 'my self' is ... er... a third person?
'Me' + 'i' = 'me'-'i' = my
Myself = the 'me'-'i' self
One's three aspects:
'i' = the masculine thought-processor; the intellect; the actor; the decision-maker; Executor/trustee; the oath-breaker; the status-taker; the trust-faker; (residence to indoctrination-of-) Man (of KJV Gen2);
(...actor = a driver of sheep, and a performer of works of fiction;)
'me' = the feminine-realm of 'my self'; the root of desire; the wise; the visible/physical aspect; the sheep (ewe-man/human); the (help) meat suit; the 3D vehicle of 'i'; real estate; land; trust res; Woman
(Woman = male and female)
(...vehicle = agency; means-to-an-end; help-meet; )
Also, he whom identifies self as 'human' is actually identifying as 'woman'...
Whereas in English 'h' is usually silent and letter 'u' is pronounced as 'ewe':
...human = 'u man = ewe man
'my self' = my non-graven ('self'-)image; my state of being; the 'me'-'i' self is a third self (the 'i am...'; the ego) expressed through the combination of the 'i' and the 'me'-'i' ie the masculine/mental and the feminine/physical; the feminine sensory-processor; intuition and instinct; one's emotional-awareness/empathy and projection; one's sentient appreciation... one's interests and desires; one's self is composed of feminine/sensual/spiritual attributes ('me') exposed to masculine/mental/soul attributes ('i') and reflects the balance of those attributes in any given 'now'; myself is the beneficiary; realm of the Spirit.
So it appears that 'Myself' governs 'me', and 'i' (if diligent) governs 'myself' - and thus controls 'me'... and if 'i' can't/won't govern 'myself' then another will control 'me'.
So 'i'/masculine and 'myself'/feminine are two fictions (or polarities of one fiction) occupying the same non-fiction real-estate/land/chattel that is 'me'...? (Poor piggy-in-the-middle 'me'... and 'ewe' too !)
One man and one woman = two people
So if 'i' is man, and 'me' is woman:
'i' + 'me' = two people
...might each individual be classed as 'two or more people'? i think so... but i'm not yet sure if that's where our incorporation occurs - at least not legally speaking. For as much as 'i' and 'myself' are fiction, both are still every bit as real as 'me'. It also looks like a self-contained trust, with 'the Father' as grantor, the 'i' as executor/trustee, 'me' as the res, and 'myself' the beneficiary - all under the Christian name - but whereas there are two 'people' coming together under a common (Christian) name with presumably a common purpose it could be a corporation... and i read somewhere that a corporation can act like a trust, so who knows?
On the birth certificate copy i have, there are two names. One is under the word: 'Name'; and is (fountain-pen-)handwritten in proper-case-cursive-english eg John-Henry, the other is handwritten in Roman-jurisdiction-text eg DOE, appearing under the word: 'Surname', with the word: 'and', pre-printed in italics between the two handwritten names. Each name represents a different (legally-dead) 'person'. This is 'two or more (names/persons) coming together for a common purpose'...
...and that's requirements 1 and 2 for a corporation seemingly satisfied - but because the two names are styled differently (although apparently joined by 'and'), requirement 3 is lacking as there is no name in common. So - not yet a corporation.
This particular style of b.c. seems to evidence provision of credit for a service by the 'surname'/person for the benefit of the 'name'/person, and the corresponding debt of the 'name'/person owed to the 'surname'/person for said credited-service... a statement of account? Or even, evidence of a pledged 'good' (a bailment?)? Or... Notice of Lien against the (vatican-held) estate of the placental-umbilical-biomass named 'John-Henry'? Yes, evidence of a lien-charge... evidence of debt/death.
Lien = a registered charge;
Whereas the basis of superior claim is 'first in time is first in line' this b.c. appears to exemplify the person 'DOE' as having priority claim as Creditor to any present and future assets held by and or due to the personal-estate 'John-Henry' until such time as the original debt (eg the charge for delivering the baby) is paid/discharged - which no one ever does. In short: it is possible that DOE as Creditor to John-Henry (the debtor), becomes the secured-party to the John-Henry estate by way of registered lien, which would seem to imply that the birth register is merely a register of lien-charges...
DOE = a state franchise; a 'dead' person;
...registers a charge for the first ever (post-natal) service provided to:
John-Henry = name of a dead placental-umbilical-biomass (this will sound strange - but i suspect this may be legally-perceived as the biological/spiritual 'father' of the baby... perhaps more on that some other time); Vatican-claimed property (under Unam Sanctum); the placental-umbilical-biomass is technically the 'owner' of the actual baby - so the owner of the placental-umbilical-biomass indirectly 'owns' the baby); a dead/debt person; OR... it could be the State that claims/owns the placental-umbilical-biomass and the baby is the 'human creature' referred to in Unam Sanctum - either way, via Unam Sanctum the Vatican is liable for present and future debts of the child.
Whereas there are three interested parts but no common name to evidence a corporation, if we consider the Vatican as Guarantor, the State as Trustee and the baby as Beneficiary we have a trust... maybe. Fact is, parents receive via privilege various benefits due to the 'child' (a legal-fiction, a 'person'-al agency/interface for State benefits due to the baby) until it 'matures'...
...into a corporation...
...which happens when 'we' (me, myself and i ) take on a 'new' name in common and 'incorporate' it into our 'self'.
It seems this 'new' (ALLCAPS) name/corporation is prepared long in advance and lies dormant until the baby reaches age sixteen, at which point the teenager does ignore/acquiesce the agreement/contract implied by the arrival of his NINo, and then fills out his first application-for-benefit ('person'-al bank account, driving licence, social security etc) in Roman-jurisdiction-text (ALLCAPS) - just because the form suggests he 'please' do so (the 'please' voids all later claim of coercion)... thereby switching the surety from his parents to himself by activating the account as a corporation (that can ACT LIKE a trust...?)
JOHN HENRY DOE
...the two names are now join-able as they share the same style, and once brought together they stick like glue in a joining-durable - a join-dur, if you will...
...and make no mistake - EVERYTHING!!! in his/your life prior to this moment is leading-to and in-preparation-for this moment and he/you have been man-ipulated 'Truman Show'-style through thousands of hours of subtle indoctrination (from parents, school, peers, TV, movies etc) to first perceive the surname as his/your own and then to NOT question authority, NOT question the NINo and NOT question any requests to write 'your' name in Roman-jurisdiction-text (D'OH !).
Oops! Looks like JOHN HENRY DOE may well be a corporation (acting like a trust?) created or at least facilitated by the State/Crown-corporation - it is a private legal 'person'-ality, a 'status' symbol. More worryingly, it is also a 'graven image'... a new, man-made, legal and third-person: a mask, a persona,...a new artificial 'self'! In YOUR image, but NOT YOU!
...the whole thing is a masquerade.
status = an artificial state of being; rank in society; State-recognised 'person'-ality;
State of being...? Hmm... where have i seen that recently? Oh yes - right here:
'my self' = my ((state of being)); my non-graven image; the 'i am...';
KJV Exodus 20:4
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,..."
"...make unto thee..." = turn yourself into; turn into yourself; take upon yourself (by way of bargain - or BAR-gain?)
JOHN HENRY DOE = a graven image that is taken upon one's 'self' as one's 'public' image...
...so when John-henry Doe first writes, and signs under, JOHN HENRY DOE and or otherwise claims: "i am JOHN HENRY DOE.", he commits an 'act' of 'self'-sacrifice and buries his own non-graven-image (spiritual-emotional-creditor-self) with a Crown-issued graven-image (corporate-debtor-self) which is engineered to create revenue from all of his efforts, for benefit of... let's just say 'others'... and in performance of this one crucial 'act' he becomes an 'actor' for the State/Crown and casts himself to perpetually 'act' (in the image of another) for a long-running West-end production, a play entitled: 'Acts of Parliament'...
This is a 'legal agreement' between one's self (as evidenced by our actions) and the Crown - we ignorantly choose to undo 'God's Law' by using man's law for something we desire. Is this not an act of evil...?
...and all of this has to be seen to be of his/your own free-will (consent) for any of it to be valid in law. Everything up to now he/you have received as benefit from the Crown is a debt agreed to by his/your parents in their surname. The (birth) agreement was that the State/Crown would provide services to BENEFIT the family in exchange for pledge of future service from the baby come-of-age (in which case the surname eg DOE is a 'parent corporation', a franchise-issuer, a pawn-broker licenced to generate/accept pledges of 'others' on behalf of the Crown) and this 'pledge of future service' in exchange for State benefits is a private agreement in circumvention of God's Law ie a PRIVILEGE.
So... the preceding text looks at the words 'know' and 'self' separately - but what about 'thy'?
'Thy' implies possession ie ownership. It says that one owns the self, that 'self' is property of 'i'...
...and is it not true that all property must be accounted for...? If one cannot account for property in one's possession, is it not potentially subject to seizure...?
Therefore:
Know thyself = be able to account for one's state of being.
...and THAT is the big secret.
(If you are wondering why i quoted the KJV at the start of this piece - try reading them with the definitions of 'me, myself and i' given here...)
Cheers!
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other god before me
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
John 10:27-30
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.
WARNING! Reading this might induce schizophrenia...
In my efforts to fulfil the biblical exhortation to 'know thyself' i thought i'd take a closer look at the actual words... and... erm - i may have gotten a bit carried away...
'know':
Is the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' a description of the Gnostic doctrine? Is LORD God commanding that man wilfully remain in ignorance, and if so - ignorance of what...?
A ' tree' (imo) is a family/patriarchy/matriarchy - roots, branches and fruit; a his-story/account of a tribe or, on a larger scale... a count-tree...? a census-ed race of 'people'...? Ancest -tree...?
So:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'the people/race/account of the knowledge of good and evil'
'Knowledge' is the internal ledger of one's experiences - all of one's 'nows' available for consideration; also, from a description under a Robert Sepehr YT vid on the Lost Gospel of Thomas:
"Gnosis literally means "knowledge", in the context of a spiritual knowledge, or divine insight, emerging directly from the inside, such as an inner voice, a gut feeling, or conscience; not dependent on any priests, or external influence."
This strikes me as having much relevance to the subtle story of the hidden characters portrayed in the 'fall of man' narrative of KJV Gen 3.
We have 'And the serpent' (flesh) as the 'gut feeling', 'Now the serpent' (bone) as the 'conscience' (?), and or possibly as the 'inner voice' of the woman under temptation. Also:
"Gnosis literally means "knowledge"..."
So then:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'...the people/race/account of the divine-spiritual-insight of good and evil...'
The next one's a good one, literally - well, kind of...
'good'
Forget the common perception of the meaning of this word - at least in this context, 'coz it doesn't mean what you think it does. In this context (imo) 'good' is the singular of 'goods', which is defined as: the property of merchants; in which case we can take it as:
'good' = a desirable item/example; a tradeable/saleable commodity; time/credit/life; bone (bona/bene/bone is Latin for 'good'); a temptation; a (potential) corruptor.
'and' = a co-ordinating subjunctive; flesh.
'evil' = unchecked desire; a stealing of time;
(Be advised: 'good and evil' are not polar opposites; it is not the same as 'right and wrong' )
So if we go with 'and' as a mere co-ordinating subjunctive:
'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'
Becomes:
'...the people/race/account of the divine-spiritual-insight of desirable item and unchecked desire...'
Or to put it another way:
'...the people/race/account of the expert-intuitive-administration of BENEFIT and PRIVILEGE...'
(...mind i don't say this is the only interpretation)
Couple that with this:
KJV Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
"...thou shalt SURELY DIE." = thou shalt become SURETY for DEBT... a DEBT-SLAVE!
...and is 'debt' not the result of credit, just as death is the result of life? Consider:
Time = life = credit
Which might imply:
tree of life = tree of credit = tree of the knowledge of good and evil
...which surprised me.
Ok, i'm sure it's obvious how we get 'benefit' from 'good' and 'debt' from death/'die' and even 'surety' from 'surely' - but how does 'privilege' equate to 'evil'...?
To undo 'God's Law' is an act of evil - 'evil' is not an entity, it is not a 'self', it is a capacity. 'Evil' describes an act, it is not something capable of independent/autonomous action. One may choose or be tempted to perform acts of evil, but one may never 'be' evil. Such temptation is labelled 'desire'... and 'desire' is a capacity for theft.
'Evil' is unchecked-desire, and to undo 'God's Law' is an act of unchecked-desire...
Privilege = private law = contract = legal;
Legality is not reality...
Legal = the undoing of 'God's Law' = an act of unchecked-desire = Evil
So 'LORD God' may seem to be saying:
"Stay away from legal experts who 'know' your true provenance and worth and how you are enticed into debt-servitude for mere benefits"
Or worse:
"Stay away from the slave-traders"
...or could it possibly mean:
'...the race of master merchants...?
Or my current favorite:
'Stay away from those who keep records from the first agreement...'
Before Eden, Man and Woman (nothing to do with male and female, more 'master and servant') were one And, the same. The LORD God merely split title to man into 'man' and 'woman' and so created imo a new status in law for something already in existence. The term 'Woman' describes another fiction and didn't exist in KJV Gen 1. Perhaps this information is what the Woman took and shared with Man, and it shocked both of them out of the stupefying slumber previously imposed upon 'them' by LORD God... and after a major cog-diss from the first ever shared 'red-pill' (fruit of the tree ie debt) they now 'know' - that the LORD God is NOT divine, is NOT their friend and NOT their 'Father'...! All of which seems to align with Gnostic doctrine.
Oh dear... substitute 'LORD God' for 'CORPORATE Government' and isn't this sounding relevant to our own age, right now?
It appears that LORD God stealthily co-opted/corrupted Man (previously property of 'And God') because he had his own purpose for Man, as follows:
KJV Gen 2:5
"...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
...and after all the shenanigans in Eden:
KJV Gen 3:23
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
All that - just to engineer a situation where Man is obliged to do what the LORD God wanted him to do ie 'till the ground'? LORD God may be less divine and more Machiavellian methinks...
...and we might want to consider more carefully the word: 'till'.
Till = toil, dig the soil;
Or:
Till = register.
Is man told to dig the soil, or is he told to register the L'and...?
Anyway - that's it for 'know' for now. Let's take a look at:
'thyself'...
First of all - what is a 'self'...?
Self = (one's) state of being; (the S-entient E-nergetic L-iving F-iction, if you will - or even S-entient E-nergetic L-ife F-orce, if you prefer.)
Therefore:
Thyself = thy state of being.
Simple, right? i'm happy; i'm sad; i'm hot; i'm cold; i'm in love... the point being - i'm always using 'something-going-on-inside' to describe 'myself', which is how it should be... the 'i am' is one's ego.
...but it's a bit more complicated than that. Turns out our 'state of being' is easy to hot-wire and hijack if we are suitably indoctrinated. The problem comes when one assumes the habit of externalising one's 'self' ie i am a lumberjack; i am a footballer; i am a policeman... because now one is 'acting', ie performing a role in a scene for an act of a play... one has now assumed an externalised ego/self corresponding to that which one 'does' rather than how one 'is'/'feels', ie a mask, and:
Mask = persona...
...which puts us on the slippery-slope. At this 'stage' we are yet one step away from legal-servitude as a legal 'person'/corporation... so what is that last step?
It is another step taken in our sleepwalk to incorporation...
Three requirements to define a corporation:
1) two or more people come together
2) for a common purpose, and
3) under a common name.
Have you ever pondered the significance and implications of the terms: "me, myself and i" ? No? Well, you've probably got a life... but it seems important if one wishes to 'know thyself' so i tried it... and immediately heard the sound of music ie "...me, a name i call myself..." - which is probably due to word-association (football...) what with the name DOE coming up shortly, but then i thought of this:
'i myself will lay me down...'
All three subject terms are evidenced in that line, and it seems clear that 'i' decides, that 'me' is one's physical aspect, and 'my self' is ... er... a third person?
'Me' + 'i' = 'me'-'i' = my
Myself = the 'me'-'i' self
One's three aspects:
'i' = the masculine thought-processor; the intellect; the actor; the decision-maker; Executor/trustee; the oath-breaker; the status-taker; the trust-faker; (residence to indoctrination-of-) Man (of KJV Gen2);
(...actor = a driver of sheep, and a performer of works of fiction;)
'me' = the feminine-realm of 'my self'; the root of desire; the wise; the visible/physical aspect; the sheep (ewe-man/human); the (help) meat suit; the 3D vehicle of 'i'; real estate; land; trust res; Woman
(Woman = male and female)
(...vehicle = agency; means-to-an-end; help-meet; )
Also, he whom identifies self as 'human' is actually identifying as 'woman'...
Whereas in English 'h' is usually silent and letter 'u' is pronounced as 'ewe':
...human = 'u man = ewe man
'my self' = my non-graven ('self'-)image; my state of being; the 'me'-'i' self is a third self (the 'i am...'; the ego) expressed through the combination of the 'i' and the 'me'-'i' ie the masculine/mental and the feminine/physical; the feminine sensory-processor; intuition and instinct; one's emotional-awareness/empathy and projection; one's sentient appreciation... one's interests and desires; one's self is composed of feminine/sensual/spiritual attributes ('me') exposed to masculine/mental/soul attributes ('i') and reflects the balance of those attributes in any given 'now'; myself is the beneficiary; realm of the Spirit.
So it appears that 'Myself' governs 'me', and 'i' (if diligent) governs 'myself' - and thus controls 'me'... and if 'i' can't/won't govern 'myself' then another will control 'me'.
So 'i'/masculine and 'myself'/feminine are two fictions (or polarities of one fiction) occupying the same non-fiction real-estate/land/chattel that is 'me'...? (Poor piggy-in-the-middle 'me'... and 'ewe' too !)
One man and one woman = two people
So if 'i' is man, and 'me' is woman:
'i' + 'me' = two people
...might each individual be classed as 'two or more people'? i think so... but i'm not yet sure if that's where our incorporation occurs - at least not legally speaking. For as much as 'i' and 'myself' are fiction, both are still every bit as real as 'me'. It also looks like a self-contained trust, with 'the Father' as grantor, the 'i' as executor/trustee, 'me' as the res, and 'myself' the beneficiary - all under the Christian name - but whereas there are two 'people' coming together under a common (Christian) name with presumably a common purpose it could be a corporation... and i read somewhere that a corporation can act like a trust, so who knows?
On the birth certificate copy i have, there are two names. One is under the word: 'Name'; and is (fountain-pen-)handwritten in proper-case-cursive-english eg John-Henry, the other is handwritten in Roman-jurisdiction-text eg DOE, appearing under the word: 'Surname', with the word: 'and', pre-printed in italics between the two handwritten names. Each name represents a different (legally-dead) 'person'. This is 'two or more (names/persons) coming together for a common purpose'...
...and that's requirements 1 and 2 for a corporation seemingly satisfied - but because the two names are styled differently (although apparently joined by 'and'), requirement 3 is lacking as there is no name in common. So - not yet a corporation.
This particular style of b.c. seems to evidence provision of credit for a service by the 'surname'/person for the benefit of the 'name'/person, and the corresponding debt of the 'name'/person owed to the 'surname'/person for said credited-service... a statement of account? Or even, evidence of a pledged 'good' (a bailment?)? Or... Notice of Lien against the (vatican-held) estate of the placental-umbilical-biomass named 'John-Henry'? Yes, evidence of a lien-charge... evidence of debt/death.
Lien = a registered charge;
Whereas the basis of superior claim is 'first in time is first in line' this b.c. appears to exemplify the person 'DOE' as having priority claim as Creditor to any present and future assets held by and or due to the personal-estate 'John-Henry' until such time as the original debt (eg the charge for delivering the baby) is paid/discharged - which no one ever does. In short: it is possible that DOE as Creditor to John-Henry (the debtor), becomes the secured-party to the John-Henry estate by way of registered lien, which would seem to imply that the birth register is merely a register of lien-charges...
DOE = a state franchise; a 'dead' person;
...registers a charge for the first ever (post-natal) service provided to:
John-Henry = name of a dead placental-umbilical-biomass (this will sound strange - but i suspect this may be legally-perceived as the biological/spiritual 'father' of the baby... perhaps more on that some other time); Vatican-claimed property (under Unam Sanctum); the placental-umbilical-biomass is technically the 'owner' of the actual baby - so the owner of the placental-umbilical-biomass indirectly 'owns' the baby); a dead/debt person; OR... it could be the State that claims/owns the placental-umbilical-biomass and the baby is the 'human creature' referred to in Unam Sanctum - either way, via Unam Sanctum the Vatican is liable for present and future debts of the child.
Whereas there are three interested parts but no common name to evidence a corporation, if we consider the Vatican as Guarantor, the State as Trustee and the baby as Beneficiary we have a trust... maybe. Fact is, parents receive via privilege various benefits due to the 'child' (a legal-fiction, a 'person'-al agency/interface for State benefits due to the baby) until it 'matures'...
...into a corporation...
...which happens when 'we' (me, myself and i ) take on a 'new' name in common and 'incorporate' it into our 'self'.
It seems this 'new' (ALLCAPS) name/corporation is prepared long in advance and lies dormant until the baby reaches age sixteen, at which point the teenager does ignore/acquiesce the agreement/contract implied by the arrival of his NINo, and then fills out his first application-for-benefit ('person'-al bank account, driving licence, social security etc) in Roman-jurisdiction-text (ALLCAPS) - just because the form suggests he 'please' do so (the 'please' voids all later claim of coercion)... thereby switching the surety from his parents to himself by activating the account as a corporation (that can ACT LIKE a trust...?)
JOHN HENRY DOE
...the two names are now join-able as they share the same style, and once brought together they stick like glue in a joining-durable - a join-dur, if you will...
...and make no mistake - EVERYTHING!!! in his/your life prior to this moment is leading-to and in-preparation-for this moment and he/you have been man-ipulated 'Truman Show'-style through thousands of hours of subtle indoctrination (from parents, school, peers, TV, movies etc) to first perceive the surname as his/your own and then to NOT question authority, NOT question the NINo and NOT question any requests to write 'your' name in Roman-jurisdiction-text (D'OH !).
Oops! Looks like JOHN HENRY DOE may well be a corporation (acting like a trust?) created or at least facilitated by the State/Crown-corporation - it is a private legal 'person'-ality, a 'status' symbol. More worryingly, it is also a 'graven image'... a new, man-made, legal and third-person: a mask, a persona,...a new artificial 'self'! In YOUR image, but NOT YOU!
...the whole thing is a masquerade.
status = an artificial state of being; rank in society; State-recognised 'person'-ality;
State of being...? Hmm... where have i seen that recently? Oh yes - right here:
'my self' = my ((state of being)); my non-graven image; the 'i am...';
KJV Exodus 20:4
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,..."
"...make unto thee..." = turn yourself into; turn into yourself; take upon yourself (by way of bargain - or BAR-gain?)
JOHN HENRY DOE = a graven image that is taken upon one's 'self' as one's 'public' image...
...so when John-henry Doe first writes, and signs under, JOHN HENRY DOE and or otherwise claims: "i am JOHN HENRY DOE.", he commits an 'act' of 'self'-sacrifice and buries his own non-graven-image (spiritual-emotional-creditor-self) with a Crown-issued graven-image (corporate-debtor-self) which is engineered to create revenue from all of his efforts, for benefit of... let's just say 'others'... and in performance of this one crucial 'act' he becomes an 'actor' for the State/Crown and casts himself to perpetually 'act' (in the image of another) for a long-running West-end production, a play entitled: 'Acts of Parliament'...
This is a 'legal agreement' between one's self (as evidenced by our actions) and the Crown - we ignorantly choose to undo 'God's Law' by using man's law for something we desire. Is this not an act of evil...?
...and all of this has to be seen to be of his/your own free-will (consent) for any of it to be valid in law. Everything up to now he/you have received as benefit from the Crown is a debt agreed to by his/your parents in their surname. The (birth) agreement was that the State/Crown would provide services to BENEFIT the family in exchange for pledge of future service from the baby come-of-age (in which case the surname eg DOE is a 'parent corporation', a franchise-issuer, a pawn-broker licenced to generate/accept pledges of 'others' on behalf of the Crown) and this 'pledge of future service' in exchange for State benefits is a private agreement in circumvention of God's Law ie a PRIVILEGE.
So... the preceding text looks at the words 'know' and 'self' separately - but what about 'thy'?
'Thy' implies possession ie ownership. It says that one owns the self, that 'self' is property of 'i'...
...and is it not true that all property must be accounted for...? If one cannot account for property in one's possession, is it not potentially subject to seizure...?
Therefore:
Know thyself = be able to account for one's state of being.
...and THAT is the big secret.
(If you are wondering why i quoted the KJV at the start of this piece - try reading them with the definitions of 'me, myself and i' given here...)
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by LionsShare » Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:14 pm
iamani, afternoon,
WOW that's alot of reading & comprehension to take in. Certainly knowing thyself is well... knowing thyself? Readers will have thought & contemplation on what you have written & obviously thier own thoughts.
where you write: 'On the birth certificate copy i have, there are two names. One is under the word: 'Name'; and is (fountain-pen-)handwritten in proper-case-cursive-english eg John-Henry, the other is handwritten in Roman-jurisdiction-text eg DOE, appearing under the word: 'Surname', with the word: 'and', pre-printed in italics between the two handwritten names. Each name represents a different (legally-dead) 'person'. This is 'two or more (names/persons) coming together for a common purpose'...'
I will agree there at least 2 persons listed, 1 is under section 2 - the Christian Name (obvious) which I thought, was or represented the Roman - Vatican (I could be wrong?) & 2 the more hidden (not so obvious) upper case JOHN HENRY DOE - concatination of section 2 & the Surety or Surname (family name) which is what the Crown has us all under & held to ramsome.
here is additional information for readers https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4916-know-who-you-are
iamani you have put in alot of effort & certainly many thanks for what you have shared.
LS
WOW that's alot of reading & comprehension to take in. Certainly knowing thyself is well... knowing thyself? Readers will have thought & contemplation on what you have written & obviously thier own thoughts.
where you write: 'On the birth certificate copy i have, there are two names. One is under the word: 'Name'; and is (fountain-pen-)handwritten in proper-case-cursive-english eg John-Henry, the other is handwritten in Roman-jurisdiction-text eg DOE, appearing under the word: 'Surname', with the word: 'and', pre-printed in italics between the two handwritten names. Each name represents a different (legally-dead) 'person'. This is 'two or more (names/persons) coming together for a common purpose'...'
I will agree there at least 2 persons listed, 1 is under section 2 - the Christian Name (obvious) which I thought, was or represented the Roman - Vatican (I could be wrong?) & 2 the more hidden (not so obvious) upper case JOHN HENRY DOE - concatination of section 2 & the Surety or Surname (family name) which is what the Crown has us all under & held to ramsome.
here is additional information for readers https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4916-know-who-you-are
iamani you have put in alot of effort & certainly many thanks for what you have shared.
LS
- LionsShare
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:33 pm
Hi LionsShare
Glad you like it, hope it helps. Bit longer than i thought it would be and my opinion may change on one or two bits, but it's still food for thought.
Cheers!
Glad you like it, hope it helps. Bit longer than i thought it would be and my opinion may change on one or two bits, but it's still food for thought.
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:41 pm
Greetings
Things are so ridiculous out there lately it's almost stressful - time for a bit of fun imo...
Having watched one or two vids lately (one of which being 'gumshoe sleuth' - great channel) in which the question was raised of whether an easy fix remedy-for-all is even conceivable, and one or two other vids of gurus offering alternative ID cards - it got me wondering... is there an easy fix remedy-for-all in an alternative form of ID?
i know, i know... for whatever reason, they never seem to work as advertised - but i have a cunning plan... i call it: 'raising the dead' (remember, it's just a bit of fun...).
The usual problem is that the plod will just tell you it's not valid and ask you for another form of ID - but what makes one form valid and another not?
In a word - surety.
Turns out - you're a private banker, a banker for money, and any old money will do... ahem... amongst other things, the ALLCAPS is a private international bank guaranteed/underwritten by the Treasury. Not convinced? Think about it - the mags court is a bank because it deals in the buying and selling of securities and that's the definition of a bank. You must also be a banker because you too trade securities every day in the form of promissory (pound) notes, bills, loan applications etc and you do so under authority of the ALLCAPS bank as its representative (albeit delinquently). What do you think you're there for, if not for banking business? Use of money with no physical backing makes everyone a commercial banker by default. You are there to deal with bank-charges...
Your ALLCAPS entity (colloquially known as 'the strawman') originates with the entry made to the birth register as evidenced by the certificate of live birth and birth certificate. It is 'owned' by the bankers (as creditors to the 'owner' of the birth register ie the State/Crown) because it is recorded as collateral for the State/Crown debt. We 'agree' to offer-up our assets and work to pay off that debt when we assume use of the ALLCAPS. Charging us for 'breaking the rules' (acts and statutes) of the charter we signed up to (in assuming use of the ALLCAPS) is one of the ways the bankers use to make us pay off that debt. The administrator of that debt (since 1815 (?) when the Holy See bestowed a crown upon it to authorise the 'salvaging (reaping) of lost souls'...) is the B.A.R. association, which effectively bears sovereignty over the 'creatures'/'lost-souls' recorded on the birth register ie the ALLCAPS estates. Each estate is a ledger of an individual's holdings, all of which are ignorantly volunteered as collateral against the (State/Crown) debt eg one's personal bank accounts and property rights and deeds etc.
We think that the accronym: B.A.R., stands for 'British Accreditation Registry' - but does it really? i ask because each country seems to have its own B.A.R. association eg the Indian B.A.R. association, the American B.A.R. association etc and it makes no sense to have an 'Indian British Accreditation Registry' or an 'American British Accreditation Registry'. For that reason, and the fact the mags is all about banking rather than true judicial process, i would say the accronym B.A.R. stands for 'Banking Accreditation Registry' (if not 'Birth Accreditation Registry? Hmmm...) and that each estate is 'accredited' by entry to the birth register and - to get back to my original point - provides surety to each estate thereby establishing provenance for legal-ID of each estate. Unless one can show plod some ID that exemplifies another equal or greater surety - we're stuck. Guru-provided ID's (with perhaps the notable exception of Minister Emoven at ULCT) do not provide details of accreditation/surety, which is why plod won't usually entertain such ID's without a fight... imo.
So how would one get around this obstacle? Simple - use their system by not using their system. Or as Bruce Lee might put it: employ the art of fighting without fighting...
This is not as confusing as may first seem. Whereas the system used by the mags depends on the establishment of certain facts (which usually favor their case) one should establish some facts favorable to one's own case at the earliest opportunity (ie at point of contact with the privateer pretending to be a constable) and do so in a manner which ensures that the court must consider those facts before it may proceed...
...and how would one do that?
By bringing/presenting claims - and lots of them! Now i know this goes against the grain - we are usually best advised to NOT make claims - but as long as one can easily prove one's claims, we're peachy.
To identify is to claim same-ness. When one identifies one's self as the ALLCAPS one is saying: "i am the same as the strawman", which means one is CLAIMING TO BE the strawman. In providing the service address and one's date of birth we further establish 'our' claim.
It is imperative for plod to get us to make that claim in order for him to capitalise on the estate (write a ticket). He cannot make the claim himself even if he's arrested someone a dozen times prior and knows their personal details off by heart. Why? Because that would be fraud - which is why he will always ask that someone to identify. This is ALWAYS the foundation of any (mags) case against us ie no certainty of identity = no case - but we can still be hauled off for refusing to identify.
So... don't refuse to identify. Just establish the fact that one is NOT the ALLCAPS/strawman... and make plod write his ticket in English or not at all, by preventing his use of the ALLCAPS name.
For instance, if one decides to attend a protest gathering there are several precautions one could take prior to the event:
1) Leave anything that would identify one as the strawman at home. This includes credit/debit cards, driving licence - even cash (banknotes). If one needs to take cash then one would write the name and address of a 'trust' on an envelope, and put the cash in but don't seal it fully - seal an inch (so when one opens it to take some cash out one can still easily re-seal it). Put a stamp on the envelope and autograph across the stamp low-to-high from left to right. One has now made oneself postmaster of that 'correspondence' and the po-po can't open it and pin the strawman on one for holding strawman-cash.
2) Create a universally-applicable notice ie one that works on anyone to whom one may choose to hand-serve it. Make it no bigger than a standard wedding invitation so one can laminate it and fit it in one's pocket.
3) Copy the notice on to paper and carry several copies in individual envelopes. Address each envelope: 'Notice of ID for neighbour', and seal only the middle half-inch of glue so it is very easy to open whilst still technically qualifying as sealed...
This is what i would put on the notice/ID:
Exhibit A
(date)
Notice to neighbour:
Notice of claim: Statement of (twenty-three) facts pertaining to one's identity;
It is hereby and herein stated as fact that: [1] i am of age more than eighteen years; [2] the attached photograph describes me well, but [3] is not a likeness of JOHN HENRY DOE; [4] i do identify with my creator/maker and [5] my creator/maker is indefinable; [6] my beckon is :john-henry-doe. and [7] is not to be confused with JOHN HENRY DOE, [8] which person i am not; [9] i claim no name, [10] no title and [11] no other form of address; [12] i live here and [13] i shelter elsewhere; [14] to identify is for one to claim sameness of one to another; [15] JOHN HENRY DOE and :john-henry-doe. are not one and the same; [16] i do not consent to identify as JOHN HENRY DOE, and [17] any one claiming otherwise does bear false witness; [18] notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent and [19] you are now put to enquiry as to the merit of the facts stated herein; [20] any attempt to represent me and or my self and or i as JOHN HENRY DOE, or indeed anything other than :john-henry-doe. especially to make gain is fraud, [21] to which i do object. [22] All rights reserved by [23] :john-henry-doe.
(For best effect perhaps autograph over your thumb or finger print.)
4) Create and learn a spiel and stick to it. One is about to turn the tables and slyly get plod to accept liability through his own ignorance ie exactly what he plans to do to oneself. In this instance one needs the would-be arresting officer to agree to identify (on camera) as 'neighbour'... which i don't see as being too difficult if one is polite. Take control as soon as one is approached - it's easy if one has the confidence, just remember he is only human... for example, 'J' is me (smiling) and 'P' is plod and the camera is rolling:
J: Howdy neighbour, i mean you no harm, the camera's just to keep us both honest - what's your name?
P: PC Plod. What's yours? Do you have ID?
J: i'm prohibited against use of flattering titles - is it ok to address you as 'neighbour'?
P: Fine by me - can i see your ID?
J: Of course you can, neighbour! i thought this might happen, so here's one i prepared earlier...
(If one hands it over quickly with confidence and a smile he will accept it and open it... and he's just been recorded being served notice of claim under a name he agreed to 'be' both verbally and by opening a sealed correspondence addressed to said name. The term: 'neighbour', is of course as much a fiction as any legal-person - but of a much higher jurisdiction...
...and guess what - by opening that envelope PC Plod just raised himself from the 'dead' and became a living-soul/'man'... for such is neighbour!)
P: What's all this, then? This isn't ID...
J: Have you read it...? Is it Notice of twenty-three claims pertaining to one's ID...?
P: ...yes, but it's not proof of ID...
J: It is if you can't disprove the stated facts. If you arrest me then that Notice goes straight into evidence... and if you cannot then disprove the stated facts the arrest becomes unlawful and you become liable to potential common-law charges of misconduct in public office... now, did you say i am being detained...?
See what we did there? We just challenged jurisdiction by serving notice of claim... we did not refuse to identify... we identified with something greater than the Crown... we did not cede jurisdiction... we forced plod to identify (as 'neighbour') outside of his allotted jurisdiction...
...but the best thing is that should one still be arrested and yet sticks to one's guns (don't ID as the strawman) one has given notice (on video) of many exculpatory facts (that preclude/prevent any hearings based on acts and statutes) on a document that is by default admitted into evidence the moment one is arrested, which one can then use against plod and mags both now and in the future - if it gets to court...
There are now twenty-three extra facts for the judge to consider, each one easily proven should one's claims be challenged. i think my favourites are numbers four and five:
[4] i do identify with my creator/maker and [5] my creator/maker is indefinable;
It might look a bit crazy to identify with the creator-and-maker-of-all-things, but there is truly nothing else in nature or fiction that we can rightfully claim 'sameness' to. What else other than creator-and-maker-of-all-things has the potential for creativity that we do? Nothing!
...and here's something else to think about - 'man' is considered superior to 'person' because 'person' is created by 'man', and 'God' is superior to 'man' because 'man' is created by 'God'. Consider for a moment that each of those three characters are fictions, so we have fictions creating fictions... how does that work? Is a fiction of the mind superior to the mind that creates the fiction...?
So 'man' is a fiction created by... 'man'? i would suggest that statement to be absolutely absurd. 'Man' is but another titled-concept, which truly begs the question... if 'man' is just another fiction created by us, then who/what are we...?
Read KJV Genesis 1 again and 'know thyself' - for we existed long before verse twenty-six...
Cheers!
Things are so ridiculous out there lately it's almost stressful - time for a bit of fun imo...
Having watched one or two vids lately (one of which being 'gumshoe sleuth' - great channel) in which the question was raised of whether an easy fix remedy-for-all is even conceivable, and one or two other vids of gurus offering alternative ID cards - it got me wondering... is there an easy fix remedy-for-all in an alternative form of ID?
i know, i know... for whatever reason, they never seem to work as advertised - but i have a cunning plan... i call it: 'raising the dead' (remember, it's just a bit of fun...).
The usual problem is that the plod will just tell you it's not valid and ask you for another form of ID - but what makes one form valid and another not?
In a word - surety.
Turns out - you're a private banker, a banker for money, and any old money will do... ahem... amongst other things, the ALLCAPS is a private international bank guaranteed/underwritten by the Treasury. Not convinced? Think about it - the mags court is a bank because it deals in the buying and selling of securities and that's the definition of a bank. You must also be a banker because you too trade securities every day in the form of promissory (pound) notes, bills, loan applications etc and you do so under authority of the ALLCAPS bank as its representative (albeit delinquently). What do you think you're there for, if not for banking business? Use of money with no physical backing makes everyone a commercial banker by default. You are there to deal with bank-charges...
Your ALLCAPS entity (colloquially known as 'the strawman') originates with the entry made to the birth register as evidenced by the certificate of live birth and birth certificate. It is 'owned' by the bankers (as creditors to the 'owner' of the birth register ie the State/Crown) because it is recorded as collateral for the State/Crown debt. We 'agree' to offer-up our assets and work to pay off that debt when we assume use of the ALLCAPS. Charging us for 'breaking the rules' (acts and statutes) of the charter we signed up to (in assuming use of the ALLCAPS) is one of the ways the bankers use to make us pay off that debt. The administrator of that debt (since 1815 (?) when the Holy See bestowed a crown upon it to authorise the 'salvaging (reaping) of lost souls'...) is the B.A.R. association, which effectively bears sovereignty over the 'creatures'/'lost-souls' recorded on the birth register ie the ALLCAPS estates. Each estate is a ledger of an individual's holdings, all of which are ignorantly volunteered as collateral against the (State/Crown) debt eg one's personal bank accounts and property rights and deeds etc.
We think that the accronym: B.A.R., stands for 'British Accreditation Registry' - but does it really? i ask because each country seems to have its own B.A.R. association eg the Indian B.A.R. association, the American B.A.R. association etc and it makes no sense to have an 'Indian British Accreditation Registry' or an 'American British Accreditation Registry'. For that reason, and the fact the mags is all about banking rather than true judicial process, i would say the accronym B.A.R. stands for 'Banking Accreditation Registry' (if not 'Birth Accreditation Registry? Hmmm...) and that each estate is 'accredited' by entry to the birth register and - to get back to my original point - provides surety to each estate thereby establishing provenance for legal-ID of each estate. Unless one can show plod some ID that exemplifies another equal or greater surety - we're stuck. Guru-provided ID's (with perhaps the notable exception of Minister Emoven at ULCT) do not provide details of accreditation/surety, which is why plod won't usually entertain such ID's without a fight... imo.
So how would one get around this obstacle? Simple - use their system by not using their system. Or as Bruce Lee might put it: employ the art of fighting without fighting...
This is not as confusing as may first seem. Whereas the system used by the mags depends on the establishment of certain facts (which usually favor their case) one should establish some facts favorable to one's own case at the earliest opportunity (ie at point of contact with the privateer pretending to be a constable) and do so in a manner which ensures that the court must consider those facts before it may proceed...
...and how would one do that?
By bringing/presenting claims - and lots of them! Now i know this goes against the grain - we are usually best advised to NOT make claims - but as long as one can easily prove one's claims, we're peachy.
To identify is to claim same-ness. When one identifies one's self as the ALLCAPS one is saying: "i am the same as the strawman", which means one is CLAIMING TO BE the strawman. In providing the service address and one's date of birth we further establish 'our' claim.
It is imperative for plod to get us to make that claim in order for him to capitalise on the estate (write a ticket). He cannot make the claim himself even if he's arrested someone a dozen times prior and knows their personal details off by heart. Why? Because that would be fraud - which is why he will always ask that someone to identify. This is ALWAYS the foundation of any (mags) case against us ie no certainty of identity = no case - but we can still be hauled off for refusing to identify.
So... don't refuse to identify. Just establish the fact that one is NOT the ALLCAPS/strawman... and make plod write his ticket in English or not at all, by preventing his use of the ALLCAPS name.
For instance, if one decides to attend a protest gathering there are several precautions one could take prior to the event:
1) Leave anything that would identify one as the strawman at home. This includes credit/debit cards, driving licence - even cash (banknotes). If one needs to take cash then one would write the name and address of a 'trust' on an envelope, and put the cash in but don't seal it fully - seal an inch (so when one opens it to take some cash out one can still easily re-seal it). Put a stamp on the envelope and autograph across the stamp low-to-high from left to right. One has now made oneself postmaster of that 'correspondence' and the po-po can't open it and pin the strawman on one for holding strawman-cash.
2) Create a universally-applicable notice ie one that works on anyone to whom one may choose to hand-serve it. Make it no bigger than a standard wedding invitation so one can laminate it and fit it in one's pocket.
3) Copy the notice on to paper and carry several copies in individual envelopes. Address each envelope: 'Notice of ID for neighbour', and seal only the middle half-inch of glue so it is very easy to open whilst still technically qualifying as sealed...
This is what i would put on the notice/ID:
Exhibit A
(date)
Notice to neighbour:
Notice of claim: Statement of (twenty-three) facts pertaining to one's identity;
It is hereby and herein stated as fact that: [1] i am of age more than eighteen years; [2] the attached photograph describes me well, but [3] is not a likeness of JOHN HENRY DOE; [4] i do identify with my creator/maker and [5] my creator/maker is indefinable; [6] my beckon is :john-henry-doe. and [7] is not to be confused with JOHN HENRY DOE, [8] which person i am not; [9] i claim no name, [10] no title and [11] no other form of address; [12] i live here and [13] i shelter elsewhere; [14] to identify is for one to claim sameness of one to another; [15] JOHN HENRY DOE and :john-henry-doe. are not one and the same; [16] i do not consent to identify as JOHN HENRY DOE, and [17] any one claiming otherwise does bear false witness; [18] notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent and [19] you are now put to enquiry as to the merit of the facts stated herein; [20] any attempt to represent me and or my self and or i as JOHN HENRY DOE, or indeed anything other than :john-henry-doe. especially to make gain is fraud, [21] to which i do object. [22] All rights reserved by [23] :john-henry-doe.
(For best effect perhaps autograph over your thumb or finger print.)
4) Create and learn a spiel and stick to it. One is about to turn the tables and slyly get plod to accept liability through his own ignorance ie exactly what he plans to do to oneself. In this instance one needs the would-be arresting officer to agree to identify (on camera) as 'neighbour'... which i don't see as being too difficult if one is polite. Take control as soon as one is approached - it's easy if one has the confidence, just remember he is only human... for example, 'J' is me (smiling) and 'P' is plod and the camera is rolling:
J: Howdy neighbour, i mean you no harm, the camera's just to keep us both honest - what's your name?
P: PC Plod. What's yours? Do you have ID?
J: i'm prohibited against use of flattering titles - is it ok to address you as 'neighbour'?
P: Fine by me - can i see your ID?
J: Of course you can, neighbour! i thought this might happen, so here's one i prepared earlier...
(If one hands it over quickly with confidence and a smile he will accept it and open it... and he's just been recorded being served notice of claim under a name he agreed to 'be' both verbally and by opening a sealed correspondence addressed to said name. The term: 'neighbour', is of course as much a fiction as any legal-person - but of a much higher jurisdiction...
...and guess what - by opening that envelope PC Plod just raised himself from the 'dead' and became a living-soul/'man'... for such is neighbour!)
P: What's all this, then? This isn't ID...
J: Have you read it...? Is it Notice of twenty-three claims pertaining to one's ID...?
P: ...yes, but it's not proof of ID...
J: It is if you can't disprove the stated facts. If you arrest me then that Notice goes straight into evidence... and if you cannot then disprove the stated facts the arrest becomes unlawful and you become liable to potential common-law charges of misconduct in public office... now, did you say i am being detained...?
See what we did there? We just challenged jurisdiction by serving notice of claim... we did not refuse to identify... we identified with something greater than the Crown... we did not cede jurisdiction... we forced plod to identify (as 'neighbour') outside of his allotted jurisdiction...
...but the best thing is that should one still be arrested and yet sticks to one's guns (don't ID as the strawman) one has given notice (on video) of many exculpatory facts (that preclude/prevent any hearings based on acts and statutes) on a document that is by default admitted into evidence the moment one is arrested, which one can then use against plod and mags both now and in the future - if it gets to court...
There are now twenty-three extra facts for the judge to consider, each one easily proven should one's claims be challenged. i think my favourites are numbers four and five:
[4] i do identify with my creator/maker and [5] my creator/maker is indefinable;
It might look a bit crazy to identify with the creator-and-maker-of-all-things, but there is truly nothing else in nature or fiction that we can rightfully claim 'sameness' to. What else other than creator-and-maker-of-all-things has the potential for creativity that we do? Nothing!
...and here's something else to think about - 'man' is considered superior to 'person' because 'person' is created by 'man', and 'God' is superior to 'man' because 'man' is created by 'God'. Consider for a moment that each of those three characters are fictions, so we have fictions creating fictions... how does that work? Is a fiction of the mind superior to the mind that creates the fiction...?
So 'man' is a fiction created by... 'man'? i would suggest that statement to be absolutely absurd. 'Man' is but another titled-concept, which truly begs the question... if 'man' is just another fiction created by us, then who/what are we...?
Read KJV Genesis 1 again and 'know thyself' - for we existed long before verse twenty-six...
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by LionsShare » Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:26 pm
iamani,
afternoon,
again WOW, this certainly makes alot of sense especially if having to deal with that scum - coppers.
With gumshoe's site there is I think alot of study to do about using the correct wording & the correct arguments, & obviously where to put the correct notices in.
Being involved in banking as you state YES we do definatly deal every day in securities, & also as you state we do agree (mostly with out knowing) to be & pay off debts of the 'system' - that's why we all pay that thing called council tax. It is surprising I know when I tell others utilities are free most don't want to know, - that slip is a cheque - what you say - a cheque? Yes so use it, I do.
When it comes to thinking on this level the more 1 thinks it is quite surprising what 1 can really come up with. Thanks iamani for your insight it certainly gives me more food for thought.
Regarding coppers, why not get a b'cert, blank out the details, photo copy it & carry it around, at the bottom it does state 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY', then ask copper 'now what you gonna do?' - its just a thought, but also very simple.
LS
afternoon,
again WOW, this certainly makes alot of sense especially if having to deal with that scum - coppers.
With gumshoe's site there is I think alot of study to do about using the correct wording & the correct arguments, & obviously where to put the correct notices in.
Being involved in banking as you state YES we do definatly deal every day in securities, & also as you state we do agree (mostly with out knowing) to be & pay off debts of the 'system' - that's why we all pay that thing called council tax. It is surprising I know when I tell others utilities are free most don't want to know, - that slip is a cheque - what you say - a cheque? Yes so use it, I do.
When it comes to thinking on this level the more 1 thinks it is quite surprising what 1 can really come up with. Thanks iamani for your insight it certainly gives me more food for thought.
Regarding coppers, why not get a b'cert, blank out the details, photo copy it & carry it around, at the bottom it does state 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY', then ask copper 'now what you gonna do?' - its just a thought, but also very simple.
LS
- LionsShare
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:35 pm
Hi LionsShare
Thanks for the feedback...
...and take me with you when you pull that blank certific-art coz i'd love to see the reaction - great idea!
Cheers!
Thanks for the feedback...
...and take me with you when you pull that blank certific-art coz i'd love to see the reaction - great idea!
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by LionsShare » Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:28 pm
further to the over all subject matter of this thread please watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U60T1gssUBs
FFD 8:45 & look at the definitions of Born & Birth. The bottom of the birth cert' tells us in the UK 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY'. Minister Emoven tells us in her vids & others also, we do not have exclusive right to use the NAME - the all UPPER CASE - Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME - Mr. JON HENRY DOE, that's the Crown Copy Right.
What is evidenced is that in col 2, our Christian name & that's our respective person in the private. So on any Birth Cert' 2 persons are evidenced, & for using the IDENTITY we all get punished because we use the Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME, we suffer penulties such as parking fines, speed tickets, going to jail, & a whole raft of..... total BS to plunder our b' cert Estate. Its all over cash value (paper & ink) not real money (gold, silver, etc), its all over a whole lot of nothing - FIAT currency - a fake, false, worthless entity. Its all for NOTHING!
Comments please!
same vid FFd 13:40 there are some other possible nuggets there too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U60T1gssUBs
FFD 8:45 & look at the definitions of Born & Birth. The bottom of the birth cert' tells us in the UK 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY'. Minister Emoven tells us in her vids & others also, we do not have exclusive right to use the NAME - the all UPPER CASE - Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME - Mr. JON HENRY DOE, that's the Crown Copy Right.
What is evidenced is that in col 2, our Christian name & that's our respective person in the private. So on any Birth Cert' 2 persons are evidenced, & for using the IDENTITY we all get punished because we use the Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME, we suffer penulties such as parking fines, speed tickets, going to jail, & a whole raft of..... total BS to plunder our b' cert Estate. Its all over cash value (paper & ink) not real money (gold, silver, etc), its all over a whole lot of nothing - FIAT currency - a fake, false, worthless entity. Its all for NOTHING!
Comments please!
same vid FFd 13:40 there are some other possible nuggets there too?
- LionsShare
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:39 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests