In the 1990s Tara Duncan and Claudia Christian could have been twins they look so much alike. Tara often wondered why Sci-Fi geeks used to hit on her all the time :D
Here's the thing about the people in charge; They don't GIVE orders, they TAKE them. I can ONLY give orders to TRUSTEES, AFTER I TAKE THEM.
The fucking QUEEN TAKES ORDERS from PARLIAMENT.
Scott Duncan I have a few questions. I am trying to understand how things are organized at the top. Nobility, Bankers, Law Society, Illuminati. I am not sure if all those are "just a bunch of guys," or if there actually rivalry, and division among these groups. Can you give some insight onto how these groups coexist, and how "authority" is organized?
KNOWLEDGE is the "Original Sin". That's the first message in the bibles of the Piece-of-Shit Christians, Piece-of-Shit Muslims, and Piece-of-Shit Jews. Knowledge is bad, and if you try to KNOW anything, we will make you suffer.
Look at the bullshit they sell!
"GOD" kills over 14 MILLION people in all the "bibles" combined. You are repeatedly told He's "Loving" and "Good"; Satan COULD arguably have killed 10...that's less than your average american soldier doing a tour in Iraq, but you are told Satan is "Evil".
This is what 80% of the world is teaching their children TODAY!
No wonder all of you become such lying duplicitous disingenuous creatures! The only ones who can't see it is all of YOU.
Oh you can PRETEND to, yet everything I point to all seems brand new to all of you! These things are obvious to me, but "NEW" to you, so NO, I assure you, you DON"T understand the damage these garbage religions do. They really are responsible for ALL the misery in the world.
It's also WHY you think wrong and value the wrong things.
Piece-of-Shit Christians, Piece-of-Shit Muslims, and Piece-of-Shit Jews = The cause of ALL misery in the world. No one locust is responsible for the swarm. It's the swarm that means you harm, not the locust.
Let that sink in.
Scott Duncan: In this forum, and many others, there is a member called Lou Manotti. I mention this because none of you seem to get the joke. Say the name, Lou Manotti, out loud. I'm making fun of your belief in the Illuminati.
Please help me understand the above comment. :/
I'm really scratching my head on this one. :/
Scott Duncan
You wrote:
" It is your RIGHT to DEMAND PROOF that you have any OBLIGATION to PERFORM and/or give compensation to, ANY PARTY. This is self-evident and is an inalienable RIGHT legally (that means you can sell it). You exercise this RIGHT with the question, "By what AUTHORITY"? "
and,
"We learned, �In VOID we TRUST�. You have one UNALIENABLE RIGHT. The RIGHT NOT to CONTRACT."
I'm looking at the inalienable/unalienable words in the above, and there is an error that I see in the Blacks dictionary.
From Blacks:
UNALIENABLE
unalienable,adj. See INALIENABLE.
INALIENABLE
inalienable,adj. Not transferable or assignable <inalienable property interests>. � Also termed unalienable.
fuck, I wasn't done that post and it posted on me....
So the question was, since there are no synonyms or homonyms in law, how can one sell an inalienable right?
Should it be alienable?
ALIENABLE
Capable of being transferred to the ownership of another; transferable <an alienable property interest>. �
alienability,n.
I am just operating on the assumption that I do not know what any of the words mean, and looking up everything. Now I have what appears to be conflicting statements.
If it is non transferable Pete Daoust then this doesn't appear to be right.
"This is self-evident and is an inalienable RIGHT legally (that means you can sell it)."
SEIZE
seize,vb.1. To forcibly take possession (of a person or property).2. to place (someone) in possession. 3. To be in possession (of property).4. To be informed of or aware of (something). See SEISIN; SEIZURE.
Ok. That makes sense. But how can it be sold if it is not transferable or assignable?
You can ask for money if someone wants to contract with your person.
And if you do, the other party has to PAY or try to find someone else to fuck around with. This is your right.
While I agree that what you are saying is correct, I am still seeing a contradiction with the wording above. I just want to resolve that contradiction.
I take it that the "Definition" they gave is from the latest Black's Law?
I know this, because that's the LAW SOCIETY'S latest gimmick; Point to other words. Look up "PERSON" in that same dictionary, and try not to go "OH, FUCK OFF"! :D
The last two editions were written that way (I'm sad to say) as a direct result of the Free-Dumbers. I'm not kidding. Menard is DIRECTLY responsible for this. It's why I sought him out in the first place.