Page 10 of 12

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:44 am
by musashi
Collection agencies often refuse to sign for recorded delivery items these days. Too many active shooters gunning for them and they don't want to be served. Its easier and just as good legally speaking - cheaper, too - to ask for a receipt for your 1st class item at the post office. A postmistress told me that. It workrd for me.
Rules of service in the CPR - a first class post to the last known address is accepted as proof of service even if you don't live there anymore so a receipt works fine.
Musashi.

https://www.dementiafraud.forumotion.com

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:46 am
by iamani
Hi musashi

Doubly helpful - nice one, thank you.

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 5:38 pm
by iamani
Greetings

Just something to consider for those whose study of law extends (as it really should!) to the KJV:

Adam = a-dam = none-mother = man = masculine expression of the angelic and completely feminine elohim.

Eve = Ev-el = Eve-of-the-elohim = dark angel = fallen.

Cain = (Gain - the freemasons' 'G') = Quyan = Queen = female, the first daughter of man and the first to nurture the land for 'gain' of faith-less security.

Abel = a-bel = none-feminine-deity = the first son of man and the first to harvest the produce of blood and living flesh.

Serpent = sur-pent = thoughts of rising above one's current position/standing/status = wisdom = 'gain'......


Tbc (perhaps).

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 6:56 pm
by iamani
Greetings

53) 'Re' is the god that gives life to the dead via re-animation.

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 7:01 pm
by iamani
Greetings

It is said a person receives benefits and privileges.

No.

A person receives benefits 'of' privilege.

Privilege = private law = contracts = Trusts.

A person receives benefits of Trust.

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:16 pm
by iamani
Greetings

54) Believe = beli'eve = be-lie eve ie 'lie to Eve'

Adam = conscious mind, lair of ego = left brain

Eve = subconscious mind, home of higher self = right brain

Sur-pent = ego mind, home of the ego = reptilian brain stem

This is, imo, the true 'trinity'.

When one 'believes' one is encouraging the subconscious to accept the unproven as fact. If you have looked into 'law of attraction' this is what it's about - one lies to Eve (the subconscious) knowing Eve will move heaven and earth to convert the lie to truth via manifestation of your desired outcome.

Alternatively - beli'eve = be like Eve.

Eve was, after all, the first 'believer'. If you 'believe' something that isn't self-evident on someone else's word then you 'be like Eve'......

Oh, and while one of the 'layers' of the KJV appears to be about alchemy, another 'layer' is instruction on handling 'your' person and navigating the waters of commerce., while another 'layer' appears to encompass divine law and yet another covers common-law.

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:39 am
by iamani
Yippee!

i've been prevented from logging on here for 3-4 months somehow.

Saw a new member registration so thought would try log on again and - voila!

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:58 am
by iamani
Greetings

55) ALLCAPS entry entitles unto entity.

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:01 am
by iamani
Greetings

56) Any way you look at life you find an 'f' in lie...

Cheers!

Re: food for thought

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:26 pm
by iamani
Greetings

Steve Mccrae recently made some great points about 'conflict of interest', as an area of remedy not exploited to its potential.

Example:

We are all aware as to how the judges refuse to even acknowledge their oath never mind honour it. Perhaps where we go wrong is by waiting for our court appearance to broach the subject.

On reading statements on the ICHOR trust site a penny dropped for me: that we have rights and these rights are tradeable as consideration, and one of those rights is the right to expect that whosoever 'affects' us in any way has a duty to know, believe in and have the ability to show upon demand (within forty days - same as time for a SAR. Funny that...) the basis of the authority they claim to enable any actions against us to which we do not consent. The Theft Act 1968 is cited as source.

So rather than wait for your hearing to ask, write (Notice) and ask first; and perhaps we don't ask 'will the judge be honoring his oath?' but instead we ask 'which oath will the judge be relying on as authority for his actions - his oath to the Queen or his oath to the Bar?' This catches two mice with one trap: not only are you requesting proof of claim as to authority but in doing so you expose
a potential conflict of interest. Scripture being higher than statute: no man may serve two masters...

Should the court fail to respond then you have the right to question that in court on the day (before you even confirm your name/status/standing) as a potential conflict of interest. This is something that has to be addressed immediately once brought to the judge's attention. Of course they may offer to defer the subject to a later date but if you object then they can't escape.

Move to dismiss. If ignored/denied point it out as a failure of due process - something else they can't ignore - and that nowhere in the legislation upon which they rely does it say one must comply with the regulations at ones own expense (thanks Martin) and that one conditionally accepts to waive the right to have one's 'affectors' produce proof of authority only as consideration to contract and that you expect X amount in compensation for your efforts whilst reserving the right to bring suit for the conflict of interest.

Just a thought....

Cheers!