Blake Gardner
Funny example of this precept is a court case I heard about but can't confirm. A guy got charged for poaching furs on a reserve. The lawyer in court brought some furs in as "EVIDENCE":-) and sat them on the table. He then proceeded to question the defendant about "THE FURS" his goal of course being for the man to "CONSENT" to the lovely and benevolent benefit of prison and/or fine by incriminating himself. (All is by consent in this system, because involuntary servitude is unlawful) The defendant however keep replying to the plaintiff with the question "WHAT FURS". The plaintiff was pointing to the furs, picking them up and saying these furs. The judge looked back to the defendant who countered with, "WHAT FURS" again. This went on for 5 or so minutes before the judge apparently dismissed the charge. Upon leaving the court room the plaintiff said to the judge, what do you want me to do with all these furs? The judge smiled and while walking away said, what furs!
Whether true or not this does illustrate the simplicity of the systems game and the vast possibilities that can be derived from that understanding. It also confirms the very reason the code of legalese was created to obscure in plain sight the simplicity of the game so only a select few can truly consciously play:-)