Friday, December 14, 2018
1431-1432: Calling Out the Roman Curia from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
Any thing that is incorporated is a
lie. It is called a "legal fiction" because it is a fiction---- made up
out of thin air. A lie, in other words. And all lies have their
genesis with who?
The Father of All Lies.
A corporation is allowed to exist by
"wink and a nod" consent and because the Roman Curia that dreamed up
and invented all the various forms of corporations -- S Corps, B Corps, C
Corps, Non-Profits, Foundations, Trusts, etc., etc., etc.,has promised
the rest of the world to destroy any corporation that indulges in
unlawful activity by liquidation.
But, surprise, surprise, surprise!
The people responsible for creating these humongous "Whoppers" in the
first place, have been remiss in their duties.
They've stood by and profited
themselves and let the very worst offenders against Mankind and against
the Public Law grow fat and sassy on insurance fraud and bribery,
racketeering, and kidnapping and press-ganging and inland piracy---- and then claim bankruptcy protection for themselves.
So these evil lawless corporation
have been allowed by the Roman Curia to run rampant, to lie, steal,
kill, fornicate, kidnap, enslave and profit from all their crimes ----
then turn around under a different name and do it all again, seeking and
receiving bankruptcy protection each time, while the victims of all
this take the pie in the face and pay the bill for it.
Well, fellas, let's just say ---- not anymore?
It's the corporate version of
absolution for a price. Indulgences for the 1%, screw you for everyone
else, especially the little children.
"Oh, I know I am a Sinner, but I am
really sorry now that my Creditors are here upon me! Oh, grant me
bankruptcy protection and I promise I won't do it again (at least, not
under the same name!)"
The Scottish Government of the UK
infringed on our Good Name and Sovereign Patent in 1868 by incorporating
"The United States of America, Inc." and stealing our identity and
hacking into our credit. The King who was supposed to be our Trustee
turned a blind eye and took kickbacks. The Pope, too. And when the
fraud was discovered, they asked for bankruptcy protection and got it,
leaving us to pay their bills.
Now they are right back at it. The
Scottish Government of the UNITED KINGDOM is again infringing on our
Good Name and Sovereign Patent and has incorporated THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, LLC and is proposing another round of fraud and credit theft
and hypothecation of debt.
We want to cut out the "sinning"
part and cut right to the part where the Scottish Government and their
Templar Bankers are down on their knees confessing and begging for
protection.
Let's all just "edit the film loop"
so that as soon as any entity on Earth tries to incorporate anything in
our Good Names or the name of our Federation or of any member State, it
just rolls over and goes----- zip! Error! Error!
And let's then skip to the part where the Curia orders the liquidation of the offending
corporations and says, "We may be required to forgive, but we are not
required to forget. You are confirmed and stubborn Sinners, and must
pay the penance owed directly to the victims."
And then they can do the same
Reality Edit on the government of FRANCE, BELGIUM, and SWITZERLAND and
the UN CORP for trying to do the same thing as the Government of
Scotland and the UNITED KINGDOM.
In fact, as far as we are concerned,
the liquidation of all Municipal Corporations would be a step in the
right direction, not just the UNITED STATES, not just the DOD, the
PENTAGON, the US NAVY, and all the rest of the alphabet soup agencies.
The duty of the Roman Curia in these
matters is painfully clear. They are on the hook to liquidate all
corporations that function in an unlawful manner. All of these entities
made of hot air need to disappear like the puffs of smoke and demon's
breath they represent. And no bankruptcy protection is allowed the same
Principals.
Notice to the Roman Curia: we aren't
members of the Hellfire Club and aren't going to pay any dues or accept
any Odious Debts. Take that one to the BANK OF SCOTLAND for us, even
if you have to paddle all the way to China.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1400 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Why PARSE is Another Fraud
By Anna Von Reitz
I could explain it in mathematical
terms, but most people are not mathematicians and it would be as useful
as speaking Greek to my Labrador Retriever. Everyone would cock their
heads, look polite and concerned, then go chase more rabbits. So, let's
discuss this in terms everyone can understand.
All languages on Earth --- Swahili,
English, Ancient Hebrew --- all our various languages ancient and modern
use just three (3) operations to produce the infinite possibilities of
grammar.
This underlying simplicity makes it possible to test the grammatical construction of all languages in exactly the same way.
It also means that if PARSE is true
for English, it must be true for all other languages worldwide. It
must be as applicable to Chinese and Ancient Hittite as modern English,
so that forms the means to check our work. We "do the problem" in
English and then we do it in Chinese. All results should tally.
All grammar and all variations of grammar are the product of three (3) operations:
1. We add words: "You say so." becomes "Did you say so?"
2. We change the form of words: "I eat beef on Sundays." becomes "I ate beef on Sundays."
3. We change the order of words: "This is sweet!" becomes "Is this sweet?"
In addition to the three operations,
there is punctuation, which is not really grammar but notation. Similar
to notation in mathematics, punctuation tells us how to order and group
and value words.
In evaluating PARSE the first thing
you notice is that everything is in capital letters. Capital letters is
the form of Ancient Latin and also the form of DOG LATIN, which has
been used for centuries as a means to defraud and enslave mankind. (See
"The Justinian Deception" and the work of the Australian, Romley
Stewart, on this subject.)
Also bear in mind throughout this
discussion: Latin is not the official language of The United States of
America, and it hardly matters if it's Ancient Latin, Church Latin, Dog
Latin, Pig Latin, or a mish-mash of all four, which on the surface of
it, is what PARSE appears to be.
The next thing you notice is that
PARSE follows conventions of both Ancient Latin and Dog Latin in its use
or failure to use hyphens between words.
In Ancient Latin, a space is the
equivalent of a period so that the name ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER written
without hyphens reduces to ANNA(.) MARIA(.) RIEZINGER(.) ---that is, it
is as if we were talking about three different entities, and it renders
the "Dog Latin" name "ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER" as gibberish.
"Gibberish" is one of
Russell-J:Gould's favorite words, but in fact, he is rendering language
that is perfectly intelligible English into "gibberish" by applying
foreign language conventions to English.
This is a fundamentally deceitful
act that changes the meaning of an English text while appearing to still
be written in English---when it is actually a bastardized combination:
English written in the form of Latin.
Russell and his friend, David-Wynn,
attempted to explain this away by calling it "PARSE SYNTAXING" as if
this mixing of Latin and English were some legitimate normal function
of linguistics, when it's not.
Thus, when Russell talks about being
"correct" he is certainly not talking about any form of correct English
or correct Latin, either. He is talking about his own peculiar
copy-righted Vatican-approved hybridization of both languages, which
functions according to rules of punctuation and grammar that he made up
himself the same way an inventor may patent a widget. And like an
inventor claiming the excellence of his new product design, Russell
preaches the supposed advantages of PARSE.
When you get a bit deeper into
analyzing PARSE, you find a virtual phobia being applied against five
out of eight parts of English speech:
(1) pronouns, (2) indefinite articles, (3) adverbs, (4) adverb-verb combinations and (5) adjectives.
If Russell has his way we will be
reduced to talking like Tarzan and thinking like Tarzan, too. Why not
just gesture and grunt and shuffle off into the bushes?
The argument against these parts of
speech (which is not grammar, but which both Russell and David-Wynn
describe as grammar) is the idea that they introduce elements of
vagueness and opinion into communications. This is hardly a new
complaint.
English developed a complete set of
descriptive pronouns in every grammatical case to answer the pronoun
problem of which "he", "she", "it" or "they" we are talking about, but
it is still necessary to read and write carefully to avoid confusion.
The alternative is to spell out every name, every time, in every
sentence:
"Ann took Ann's seat and handed Ann's homework to Ann's teacher and Ann told Ann's teacher that Ann was sorry that Ann's homework was late."
This approach presumes that we are
not intelligent enough or honest enough to figure out the context and
apply the correct interpretation to pronouns and
must instead have everything literally spelled out for us. That is, it
is an attempt to correct a character defect (dishonesty) or mental
incapacity by using only Proper Nouns.
It's arguable, but if a man wishes
to be dishonest, he will be dishonest, and if we lack the mental
capacity to use pronouns we should not be entering into contractual
agreements, should we?
The phobia against indefinite
articles is similar. Do you really want to give up the ability to talk
in theoretical terms about "a herd of cows"? Or less-than-exact
amounts, such as "a pinch of salt"?
Not everything is exact and specific
in life and we should not limit our imaginations-- or our language---
in an effort to pretend otherwise. Russell likes to bang on about
"correctness" but correctness is dependent on truth, and the truth is
that somewhere "a herd of cows" exists and there is an amount of salt
pinched between my fingers. Go figure.
The rant against adverbs,
adverb-verb combinations, and adjectives are all related to the idea
that these parts of speech introduce elements of opinion and vagueness
and possible confusion into our communications. It's easy to see why:
"He was running slowly toward the
bridge." invites us to ask --- who is "he"? and what does "running
slowly" mean? How slowly? Can you run and still be slow about it?
What bridge? Which bridge? At what point in the past?
Someone or something (possibly a horse or dog or...?) of the male gender was
running in the direction of a bridge at some point in the past and that
is about all we can say about that. We have to add and change and
rearrange words --- all three operations of grammar --- to get a more
specific result:
"Sunday afternoon Tom Chambers jogged up the hill to the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."
This version of the same basic
information still doesn't nail down specific time or date. We could add
those details and a couple prepositional phrases to further clarify our whole message:
"On Sunday, October 2,1988, at three
o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers jogged up the hill on the
eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."
This version of the same basic
information doesn't tell us which "Thomas Chambers"..... so, we go back
to the drawing board in search of exactitude:
"On Sunday, October 2, 1988, at
three o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers, an unemployed
blacksmith born and raised in Lowery Gap, Kentucky, jogged up the hill
on the eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."
We now have a much more complete and
precise description of who, what, when, where --- but still no why,
which is another detail we can add to complete the whole picture:
"On Sunday, October 2, 1988, at
three o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers, an unemployed
blacksmith born and raised in Lowery Gap, Kentucky, jogged up the hill
on the eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee, to
take in the view."
What do we notice about this process of grammatical changes -- adding words, changing words, and rearranging words?
First, there are a lot more words to
answer a lot more questions. Second, this process requires many
prepositional phrases.... on Sunday.... at three....in Lowery....up
the.... on the... near Memphis.... to take in the view. Third, the
information being conveyed is much more specific. Fourth, a change from
the more complex "was running slowly" to "jogged" side-stepped the issue
of "how slowly" was he running and centered attention on the fact that
he was moving faster than walking, but not sprinting.
This is all very good. What else do we notice?
If we have the information and if we are willing to share the information, we can use our language just as well or better than PARSE to communicate to anyone else.
These two conditions: (1) having the
information and (2) being willing to share it, are what mathematicians
call "necessary limits".
If you don't have the information you can't share it via any language or grammar.
Imagine the very first sentence in a specific context -- "He was
running slowly toward the bridge."
-- being spoken by an eye-witness to an accident in which a jogger was
struck and killed by a drunk driver veering onto the shoulder of the
road.
The Witness doesn't have all the
information to fill in all the blanks, so the communication isn't
dishonest nor is it incorrect.
The second condition being willing to share the information is again a matter of honesty.
Suppose that the Witness knew the
victim, but for reasons of their own, chose not to reveal that to the
police investigating the accident.
That's the other necessary limitation of honest communication.
Both of these necessary limitations apply to PARSE just as they apply to Latin and English.
Finally, every word in a
mathematically interfaced system of language is a unique alpha-numeric
operator. PARSE obligates you to ignore that fact and pretend that
"cucumber" and "pickle" are equivalents and also ignore the fact that
"aqua" and "Turquoise" are not the same thing.
When you have more than one word describing the same or even multiple things that may or may not be associated there is no such absolute mathematical truth involved.
When you have more than one word describing the same or even multiple things that may or may not be associated there is no such absolute mathematical truth involved.
"Please peel the cucumbers." and
"Please weed the cucumbers" aren't in the same ballpark, as one refers
to the fruits and the other to the vines, and neither one implies
anything about "pickles".
"Turquoise" may describe a range of blue-green colors (including "aqua") or a stone.
You can do the same test in any
language on Earth and get the same negative results. PARSE does not and
cannot address these factors much less reduce them to any absolute
meaning.
At the end of the day it all still
comes down to the "necessary limitations" -- how much information you
have and how much information you are willing to share. These
limitations are the "Prime Operators" in any communication system, and
the grammar used --- as we have just demonstrated --- is then
secondarily deployed according to one of the three operations: adding
to, changing, or re-ordering of words, orchestrated by a common and
agreed-upon system of punctuation.
So there is no actual benefit to
PARSE and no basis for the claim of a valid mathematical interface.
Even the symbol logos is flawed. There is no provision for double
letters, no provision for letter conversions like "w" versus "v" and "v"
or "j" for "i" and we could go on.
Suffice it to say that PARSE is just
another attempt to baffle and bamboozle with arcane fakery being
offered to us on the part of the Municipal Government(s) administered by
the Vatican and a con game by men who are either (1) shysters or (2)
who have been co-opted in ignorance or (3) are being blackmailed to act
as front men.
There are two real dangers to PARSE.
The first is that when you go into a
court and start presenting Russell's language to the Judge you identify
yourself as belonging to Russell's corporation, which is a Municipal
Corporation of the old French-Belgian-Swiss UN CORP Cabal and the
UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION which is also affiliated with them, so all you
have accomplished by adopting PARSE is to move to a different pen in the
same feedlot as you have been in since 1946. It's just not operating
under the name UNITED STATES anymore.
This sad outcome may not be what
Russell intends, but that is what the practical bottom line of it is.
He may think he has escaped and formed a whole new world construct, but
in fact, the same old webmasters own him and own his inventions, his
patents, his copyrights and everything else.
The second danger of PARSE is even more insidious.
Those of you who have studied
government and history for any length of time have become aware of the
fact that "Federal Code" is literally written in code, so that only
members of the government corporations, their employees, and their
subcontractors know what the lingo actually means.
For example, in Federal-ese, the
word "person" means "corporation". And we are all considered
"non-resident aliens" for the purposes of the Tax Code.
It's all like Buck Rodgers and his famous Decoder Ring.
As PARSE is a made-up language
copyrighted by Russell-J:Gould he gets to encode whatever meaning he
wants to encode, and change the meaning of words and punctuation to suit
himself. Not only that, PARSE is so obtuse and complex and picky as to
be: (1) unintelligible and (2) difficult to write.
All this expands the ability of the
Vermin to make things say whatever they want them to say, based on an
extra space between words, or the use of a semi-colon instead of a full
colon, or an accent mark or a hyphen. It becomes the "Ultimate Code"
and its purpose is not to clarify, but to hide the meaning of things
except to the acolytes---- the members of the Bar Associations and the
Vatican Municipal Government network.
If you thought "Legal-ese" was nasty and difficult to deal with, just adopt PARSE instead.
This is one old Grandma who has been
up the hill, down the valley, and up the other side, and I am not going
back again. I've been victimized by these fakirs for most of my life,
but I haven't been deceived. And that is where the sticking point is.
In order for the Vermin to get away
with their crimes under Roman Civil Law, which is commercial law, they
have to be able to claim that their victims allowed themselves to be
deceived.
And that ain't happening.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1400 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
No comments:
Post a Comment