Holy fuck shit, I just listened to this ! :D

She didn't made it up to the kool-aid part ? :D

I am trying to figure out HOW in the fuck this husband of her could get in this kind of bullshit ? ...I mean if Nad would show up one day with this crazy bullshit, I would tell her to fuck off with that shit, no ? :/

A coincidence perhaps. The Mighty Dean C mentioned her in a post earlier today as well. Over some bullshit. I didn't pay too much attention to it

I wonder if Dean have seen her boobs. Just a thought... :/

Wow! Just wow. Enjoy the fortress of remand Dean...you deserve it.

Well this cunt doesn't like that I tell the truth. Tara Duncan gave her a smack-down back in 2012 and she's still pretty butt-hurt about it :D She EMBRACES the veil. She doesn't "lift" it.

Lol. She did embrace Dean's veil, that's for sure, 10k + worth of embraces! Fun fact; I unfollowed her +/- 1 year ago cause she had lots of believes and she didn't want to be "opened minded" to reason and evidance. When I found out that reality existed, she was out the window!

The stupid cunt followed me for a grand total of 3 weeks. Andrew D'Aragon showed up around that time. Two separate and independent parties... as objective as Free-Dumbers CAN be (Yes you were all Free-Dumbers back then) and the Admiral of a private navy had to set you both straight. Kookie-Lee rejected what I had to say, because I had mean things to say about her bullshit. She gets bilked for Ca$h. Anyone ever notice how I'm never accused of scamming anyone? Seriously; Where are MY "victims"? Where are all the "Expose the Admiral" videos? It doesn't matter if you get butthurt because of the #1 rule of the universe... I'M STILL RIGHT! FUCKING QED!

All these years, I have NO VICTIMS. EVER.

That will change in 2016.

HEY LOOK! It's in the motherfucking archive server! :D March 7th 2012, Tara Duncan wrote: We had a little incident this evening where Andrew, visiting and esteemed guest, commented on a "friend's" wall, received a response from the moniker Benjamin II (epic name by the way in conversations about kings) and commented as follows: It went basically like this. ..... "Andrew: The signed under duress argument fails in that the king signed as a condition of surrender where he got to keep his thrown. Otherwise they would have just killed him or thrown him into a dungeon for the rest of his days. Either way, the Magna Carta is the foundation of law. Learn the history before you parrot bullshit that hater's spew to make themselves themselves look smart. It only proves their ignorance. Benjamin II: The Magna Carta was a life document, as long as that king was alive so was it, the MC is just a reference or a relic in time. Andrew: And you are full of shit." Andrew was then rebuked, albeit somewhat anonymously in the general forum for an "inappropriate comment". Receiving this Andrew mentioned the contents of the thread to us and asked if we could add some value to the conversation. So, we're off. Andrew adds Scott and Roguesupport to the group, "Lifting the veil with Cari-Lee", so we can participate in the conversation. Moments pass, the request is pending administrator approval. And pending administrator approval. And denied. No explanation. And then there is a private message to Andrew, the "Private, oh so private, private message." "As much as "I" appreciate Scott and Rogue...my group won't be able to handle them just yet." I'll take a shot at translating here in case this isn't completely clear. "While "I" am enlightened and liberal, my group might be offended or have their little feelings hurt by people who speak the truth and don't pull any punches. After all, while we seek the truth, we need to do it in the absence of reality, where there is only love and good wishes, political correctness, and no bad words." Well it has been a while since we heard one of these. But there have been a million of them. Thinking back there was the time at a party when my friend, after hearing a comment which was generally misunderstood, apologised on my behalf with the memorable sentence, "Don't mind her, she's just weird". I should point out that while I was fairly popular at the time my friend was not. The general sentiment, in fact the explicit instruction, was that I was wanted at this event, but she wasn't welcomed to attend. She was at this party, and every other party we attended because I told my group that this girl was my friend and I would not come without her. Love me, love my dog. Thanks for that former friend. Then there was another occasion when Scott and I were at a party hosted by one of his good friends. Scott and I were sitting and talking to several people when a pretty, but large, well, pretty large really, girl sat down and joined in the conversation. Scott, hearing her speak, turned to her and asked, "Are you Dawn's (host's girlfriend) sister? Apparently the tone and inflection of her speech made this a distinct possibility. But somehow this was deemed a completely inappropriate comment and she stormed off alerting our host to some real or imagined travesty. It was impossible for us to discuss the situation with him when confronted and we eventually decided to leave. Scott's best friend found it easier to believe we had slighted the largish and relatively uninteresting woman (who later turned out to have serious emotional issues comparing herself to her blonde, graceful sister) than to listen to the truth. He later apologised when he more fully understood the dynamic between the sisters. But in later years, despite his penchant for political correctness, I came to realize he was a profoundly duplicitous and ignorant man. Goodbye former friend. Then there was my best friend's wedding. Scott was uninvited when he tried to explain the reality of his situation to my friend...immigration scam, 6 months at the outset, you know the drill. Under the circumstances I had to inform my friend that neither of us would attend. He came to his senses, we attended the blessed event without incident, and were there for him about six months later when the whole thing came to an end. I could go on really, with a hundred examples where we were not good enough to join "your" party. But the truth is, you're not good enough to join ours. There is no truth in telling someone those jeans do not make your ass look fat regardless of how it initially makes you feel. Maybe this information, which you already know by the way, will send you into an emotional turmoil leading to your pathetic suicide. But maybe, just maybe, you'll examine yourself realistically, eat a sensible diet, exercise, and be able to see yourself in a new light. I could go on here, but what would be the point? Truth is truth. Reality is reality. Popping into other people's conversations for a little titillation, living on the wild side, or seeking personal edification while at the same time shunning those same people in your private venues, because they're not quite good enough, strikes me as somewhat narrow-minded and duplicitous, but we will not judge you for it. We're all about full disclosure and it would be mean-spirited to keep you out because we don't think you make the grade. I should mention that Andrew did not tell us about your oh, so private message. If your traffic is going through our network, your illusion of privacy is a joke. You're still welcomed to chat on our Facebook groups, your issues notwithstanding, with all our reality and bad words. But seriously, "Lifting the veil?" Maybe, "Embracing the veil and arranging it until only a tiny opening exists for a partial view of reality while wearing rose-coloured glasses", would be more appropriate for you. ---- End :D

THEN Tara Duncan wrote: Earlier today I posted a message of sorts regarding someone I don't know and will likely never meet, about being disallowed from a chat, presumably for being judged as inappropriate company. I have a personal issue with pre-crime and being restricted from participating in discussions involving truth and reality when our forums are open to, and frequented by, the very people in question. We thought it might be fun and educational to participate in your forum and ended up feeling badly about ourselves for bad conduct not yet exhibited in your chat. It is certainly your right to restrict access to your Facebook "areas". And I for one would think twice about inviting us to a baby shower. But beyond that, you personally decided for your participants (as you said you, yourself, would have no issue with us being there) that they would be unwilling or incapable of having enlightening discourse with people (here I extrapolate) who might exhibit terseness or use bad words. I am revisiting this for several reasons. The first is that the kind of attitude that condones censoring your own interactions, or those of your friends, your children, your next door neighbour, is toxic to allowing them to grow and develop their own thoughts and opinions. And in case you've skipped ahead to a "What about the children?" argument I'm not talking about pedophile babysitters, pictures of sex with donkeys, or any justifiable threats to their welfare already known. The world is chock full of people who are attempting to censure your information to keep you distracted, while limiting your access to real knowledge and information. It is always curious to me when people who appear to want to transcend that restriction, pick up the ball and exhibit similar censorship of their own. Another reason, while again acknowledging your right to limit your interaction with whomever you choose, is that your forum title implies its purpose is to "lift the veil" of ignorance or deception -- here I'm perhaps stretching the meaning as it could just as easily refer to some pornographic reference for people who like to start with headgear before they get down and dirty. Yet another reason is that you assumed we would not have the wherewithal to exhibit the behaviour of guests on your forum, and hence our conduct would be indistinguishable from being on our own. As I said, I don't know you. And, just in case and to be clear, it was not my intention to hurt your feelings; rather to point out systemic issues even with those who state their purpose is to lift the veil of anything. Hell I don't care. Lift the veil, lower the veil, wear the veil, eat the veil. And speaking of that, I advise anyone reading this to just eat the cookie. You'll forget all about this when you're finished and everything will be fine. People sometimes ask why I write for several months or years and then disappear entirely for prolonged periods. I think I just get frustrated after a while and wander off to pursue other opportunities. I really like writing but am beginning to suspect what I have to say is not particularly of interest. I think I know what you (not you specifically, anyone who's reading this) really want. Humour, no content, and no big words. So for your reading pleasure I offer by separate post, Purse Animals.

RELEVANT: Purse Animals So I was sitting on a train next to a woman with a mangy rug in her purse. Fair enough, I sometimes inadvertently stick items in my purse which later confuse me. So, to each her own taste. But on closer examination I realized it was a fattish, big-breasted woman accompanied by a mangy rug with what appeared to be eyes, ears and mouth sticking out of the container. The rug stirs and is fed some french fries. This would make it the first carpeted AI, or a small quadriped, possibly incapable of independent locomotion. Ah yes, the animal in a handbag. I just don't understand the 'animal in a handbag' craze. The fact that it has been around for some years now and popularized by celebrity endorsement still makes it somewhat incomprehensible to me. Why would you carry an animal like a fashion accessory? What first made breeders think a tiny useless animal which needs to be ported like one's lunch would be the next pet rock, which by the way I also found retarded. On the way out the door, grabbing your suitcased-sized carry-all, you think to yourself, "Lipstick, brush, keys, wallet, and oh yes, incomprehensibly ugly animal...check, check, check, check and check." A conversation starts between the rug woman and the woman across the aisle. Woman number two is asking about the size, weight and pedigree of the pursekin. It is a purebred, what does Scott call it, "What's the fucking point?" Woman number two appears fascinated and would like to purchase one of these fine animals for her daughter. By a stroke of good fortune, the fattish, big-breasted woman is a professional "dog" breeder (presumably overseer of dog breeding and not an active participant). As she extolls the virtues of this fine, um, specimen, we learn that it is fully grown, very docile, has a small mouth with pointy teeth leading it to have somewhat unpleasant (read putrid -- as I said it was beside me) breath, and is on its way to the pet groomer (holy crap is this an understated requirement!). And all this can be yours for the purchase price of $1500.00 and a tote bag. Well there you have it. The perfect companion. Dirty, unkempt, smelly breath, little or no motion, accomplishing nothing and eating french fries. Under certain circumstances may crap randomly in your purse. I guess there's nothing left but to <insert your own marriage joke here>.

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that exchange. That's right Andrew. When you asked for assistance we took a proverbial punch for you. Sort of like when we asked for a small favour from you -- excepting the part where you did nothing.

I saw the video. I find very difficult to have empathy with this woman, and her husband. I have empathy for their children, for they just do/go where ever "mom and dad" say to go. Plus she had her moment here, and blew it. Am I the only one to see she, and her husband brought all this upon themselves? Did Dean put a gun to their heads for them to do anything? Assuming "her side of the story" is true (which I do not know), Dean lied, but, she seems to be playing the "It's ALL Dean Clifford's fault!" card. I do not buy it. Maybe the video should had been her admitting how "belief" almost ruined their lives, and how she and her husband's actions possibly harmed their family. One HUGE thing about the old programming is this thing of NOT wanting to assume responsibility for our actions. Like with "Jesus the Mega-Insurer", someone else needs to be blamed, and take the hit for the INSURED party. As an ex-Free-Dummer I can "feel" some empathy for them. After all I come from that, and it was Scott who gave me the tools and data for a new program. The rest I had to do myself, putting the pieces together. But if you came to the Tender for Law and had the opportunity to be exposed to what Admiral Scott has been teaching, and you dismiss it, it's hard for me to have empathy.

Amen oops I mean Here Here ?

Ok, but there got to be a "boobs part" in this story. This is the part I am interesting in..... Dean MUST have seen her boobs, for fuck sakes, a land, a garden, a house, $500 a week.....yes, definitly the boobs part is missing. Can't wait for Dean to release the video of it :/

He may have seen more than boobs. Perhaps the whole show

Oh come on now, you fucking pervert :P

Lifting the BOOBS :D

You can just ask her, I think. :D

If I were to say, "Double your IQ or no money back", would that be wrong?

Hey Kookie-Lee! Did Dean C. Clifford ever see your tits? :D

Here, I am not alone :D

If only the truth surfacing so easily was a thing outside of the Tender for Law. Just imagine if life were like that...there would be lots of butt hurt believers attacking each other lol! :D

The erstwhile Steven Bates became a victim of the DMCA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwwW8UzoRxA

...and he pulls a Menard! :D https://www.gofundme.com/r44jpta4 I don't know if I've covered this, but THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I SWEAR I've covered this!

Well, Steve "Baits."

Steve Baits is too busy following Dean Clifford, asking for legal tender, while the decentralization evolution is exploding. Come on, Steve, you could at least include a Bitcoin address somewhere. I've heard it's free to have a wallet. :P

I know a mentally ill computer operator, from the Internet, that is giving away free money, Steve! This crazy Internet money!

AKA "Dr Who." Don't forget that part. Don't EVER forget that part.

I stand corrected, "Dr. Who." I've heard your children are coming. Some better watch out. But then again, who is going to believe some crazy Internet guy? :D

It's all Perfectly Legal... There was a court order! I'm just doing my job. :D Those will be the last words many will hear in 2016. We boarded and seized a bank in 1997 and now Erich and Dan want to board and seize a Country and do what we did to the bank. ...alas, I'm too old for that shit.I was supposed to RETIRE at 40. :(

They're too old as well. They just don't know it.

It's all just "Crazy Talk" anyway <3 :D

Grandma Moses began "painting in earnest" at the age of 78. You lot may have a few good years left :D

Never heard of this guy :/

Grand-m�re Moses :P

Nope, his name doesn't ring a bell :P

Don't worry, Pete. You don't need to get this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URAqnM1PP5E

Another Haitian singer ? :/

Sorry, I read/hear some words, and music comes right along. :/

This. This is why we're doomed.

It's like you Spics have a different Female Haitian Singer for EVERYTHING :/

Is this a French thing? You hear "grandmother" and you think it's a man? Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

They have "masculine" and "feminine" nouns too! My PENCIL fucks my RULER in french. :D

Actually it's worse than that. One of them can't get past the belief it's a man. The other apparently hums a catchy little pop tune.

I just learned who Grandma Moses was. Does that help? Shit, I guess not. :/ Fuck.

Shit, sorry.....I thought this was Grandma-Moses :/

Ok, it's true, we're doomed.

Think about that. All of you here are the MOST INFORMED people you know. ...let that sink in.

:/ ....scary

That is why I say it, for it DID sink in.

*sank, sunk, sink .....wtf ? :/

Here in French, the verb sink.... Pr�sent je coule tu coules il coule nous coulons vous coulez ils coulent Pass� compos� j'ai coul� tu as coul� il a coul� nous avons coul� vous avez coul� ils ont coul� Imparfait je coulais tu coulais il coulait nous coulions vous couliez ils coulaient Plus-que-parfait j'avais coul� tu avais coul� il avait coul� nous avions coul� vous aviez coul� ils avaient coul� Pass� simple je coulai tu coulas il coula nous coul�mes vous coul�tes ils coul�rent Pass� ant�rieur j'eus coul� tu eus coul� il eut coul� nous e�mes coul� vous e�tes coul� ils eurent coul� Futur simple je coulerai tu couleras il coulera nous coulerons vous coulerez ils couleront Futur ant�rieur j'aurai coul� tu auras coul� il aura coul� nous aurons coul� vous aurez coul� ils auront coul� Subjonctif Pr�sent que je coule que tu coules qu'il coule que nous coulions que vous couliez qu'ils coulent Pass� que j'aie coul� que tu aies coul� qu'il ait coul� que nous ayons coul� que vous ayez coul� qu'ils aient coul� Imparfait que je coulasse que tu coulasses qu'il coul�t que nous coulassions que vous coulassiez qu'ils coulassent Plus-que-parfait que j'eusse coul� que tu eusses coul� qu'il e�t coul� que nous eussions coul� que vous eussiez coul� qu'ils eussent coul� Conditionnel Pr�sent je coulerais tu coulerais il coulerait nous coulerions vous couleriez ils couleraient Pass� premi�re forme j'aurais coul� tu aurais coul� il aurait coul� nous aurions coul� vous auriez coul� ils auraient coul� Pass� deuxi�me forme j'eusse coul� tu eusses coul� il e�t coul� nous eussions coul� vous eussiez coul� ils eussent coul�

It's why NO "justice" is afraid of being "exposed". There is no REAL threat to them. People forget quickly.

...and NONE of you are qualified to knowledgeably question the issues.

True. We are alive. ;) Knowledge is teachable if you value the right type of knowledge. Using appropriate rhetoric in front of the relevant humans that then will know what to do with this.... man fuck this. I suggest we ask Dr who. He can't get killed.

That doesn't actually solve the problem staring you in the face. I have been very clear about what you are up against, but it's only REAL to those who actually experience it. Quebecois have to TRANSLATE (not "interpret") what I say, so the words I choose become VERY clear, as everyone in Quebec who reads what I say, will tell you. It's a HUGE leg-up! An advantage only they have! Sadly, it's easier to teach the people who think in French than it is to teach people who speak ENGLISH.