So then, all the lawyer really does is stop the process long enough to say you forgot something. He or she has a right  or rights.  He says, "Hold on!  You are forgetting there is a Charter of Rights or Bill of Rights and you are hired to... you need them yourself since you must own some skates, hockey cards, pucks, a horse, you have some children, a Bannock  schnitzel Idea called Hanzo's Hopps, Bannock,  schnitzel and Chips."  Now, if you deny the right of another human being to enjoy his common law right to own a concept, then you are denying your own and you have instigated a civil war but if you insist, the law has already answered your intentions. The first intention is a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to commit an offense.  The offense itself involves murder, business interference, theft of property, criminal trademark interference and murder. All of this is predicated on the notion that his common law right is of no issue in achieving your ultimate intention which is to take criminal possession of a business name and concept and treat it as your own in broad day light and you can't really achieve business interference in secret for very long. In fact, indictments are pending. The best idea is to just get him to sign his common law interest over to you for free except for the mandatory moneys or moneys worth requirement amounting to $1.00.  This is just the law that keeps you safe and also Moneysworth and Best in addition to the big pizza shops and the global burger shops who could not operate without law.  You could get arrested for theft under $5000.00 for not paying for your $1.00 cookie or drink  at Mcdonalds and end up with the penalty of slavery in the US regardless of your complexion although that is now over and certainly the UN has brought charges against the US for the 13th amendment and the evident human rights abuses. There is now no one being held under that 13 amendment any longer.  They have other means to hold people in machines forever  such as the laws governing science and mausoleums with the consent of the individual to donate their organs upon death.  The key word is consent.

So then, all the lawyer really does is stop the process long enough to say you forgot something. He or she has a right  or rights.  He says, "Hold on!  You are forgetting there is a Charter of Rights or Bill of Rights and you are hired to... you need them yourself since you must own some skates, hockey cards, pucks, a horse, you have some children, a Bannock  schnitzel Idea called Hanzo's Hopps, Bannock,  schnitzel and Chips."  Now, if you deny the right of another human being to enjoy his common law right to own a concept, then you are denying your own and you have instigated a civil war but if you insist, the law has already answered your intentions. The first intention is a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to commit an offense.  The offense itself involves murder, business interference, theft of property, criminal trademark interference and murder. All of this is predicated on the notion that his common law right is of no issue in achieving your ultimate intention which is to take criminal possession of a business name and concept and treat it as your own in broad day light and you can't really achieve business interference in secret for very long. In fact, indictments are pending. The best idea is to just get him to sign his common law interest over to you for free except for the mandatory moneys or moneys worth requirement amounting to $1.00.  This is just the law that keeps you safe and also Moneysworth and Best in addition to the big pizza shops and the global burger shops who could not operate without law.  You could get arrested for theft under $5000.00 for not paying for your $1.00 cookie or drink  at Mcdonalds and end up with the penalty of slavery in the US regardless of your complexion although that is now over and certainly the UN has brought charges against the US for the 13th amendment and the evident human rights abuses. There is now no one being held under that 13 amendment any longer.  They have other means to hold people in machines forever  such as the laws governing science and mausoleums with the consent of the individual to donate their organs upon death.  The key word is consent.    











Comments

Popular Posts

The Woman at the Well and the Proverbs 31 Woman. July 15th 2026. To find out if you are in the current of Royal Sheba or Bathsheba(agent of Mikhal), read Proverbs 2,5,6,7,9,11 and 12. The Hijab wins. The Hijab is really about the purpose; the purpose of the woman in the civilisations. She builds by having and formally naming the baby. Then we feed the baby, raise the baby and then bring the baby to the teaching. We need a woman, a chick with this rhythm; strictly rhythm. This is the purposeful rhythm. Otherwise, you are always learning but not settled in this truth, this purposeful rhythm. You are then purposeless...the purposeless chica, the aimless chica. But how can we achieve this rhythm with a guy on board to help as the husband if we don't have sufficient income support money? Otherwise, she's not right....not in the holiday...not in the celebration. But if she is following the rhythm, then she is in the Hijab. She is covering children and is covered. This makes her an undercover Puritan or a secular Hijab. We are all Space Ship attendants. By Natalie Shouldnow, Missy Peart, Tina Gackleman, Santo Madre; with Jennifer Markham. The man says that if he put his finger in the nose...in the nose of one woman, the sensation on his finger is the same no matter what woman it is. There are female characters in the bible. How does the woman at the well with Jesus contrast with the Proverbs 31 woman? The one in chapter 31 has just the one husband who is hers. The other has had five and the one she is currently with is not her own. Maybe she was busy being a surrogate mother. Maybe she is in the aimlessness with five husbands and the one she is with is not her own. She should be content with the one husband since it's all the same like when a man sticks his finger in your nose. It's the same sensory experience for him and the woman no matter what woman it is. We just don't want any Babylonian woman impeaching the man or the children out of social competitions in the house space for her authority and Babylonian ascendancy. Monogamy may not be a natural culture as juxtaposed with the nomadic bush man neanderthal commune but it is what we have now and we call it the monogamous family unit. This exists in the bush man experience when a woman allows one male commune member to copulate with her once a month with no thought of who is who as brother or cousin, never the father, son or uncle, but if she is with any man twice over two months, then they have to leave the commune and separate by going to the monogamous culture of formalities in a township. This is because she has been taken as a spouse, a wife just as Pharaoh acknowledged Sarai as Abraham's wife. They leave the bush. Click here.