Disclaimer: Please note that the content on this site is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as anything else such as qualified professional advice. Anyone on this site seeking any advice should consult a qualified professional. This site's owner/creators cannot vouch for the veracity of the content on this site and are not liable for any risks or issues associated with using or acting upon the information on this site.
07 Feb 2021 12:48:34 Doubt it I just watched a video, this Whitehouse insider says the Armed Forces are not in control. If not Trump is one of them, which I always suspected. Of course I hope I’m wrong but certainly looks that way to me. The Super Bowl will be interesting especially as they erected a 5G Super Bowl next door to promote and use the technology. What may also be connected is all restrictions and masks are lifted for that county/ state now?
06 Feb 2021 09:19:04 I would argue this looks more like a narcissist trying to hang on to their status, knowing his followers will believe it?
I might be wrong but I feel like it’s time we stopped thinking a billionaire cares about us, and if we want change. to consider more plausible solutions. We’re wasting so much time waiting for the saviour that isn’t.
07 Feb 2021 12:55:50 Oh I agree totally, most don’t realise Kissinger met with Trump whom is a Globalist and Zionist. Trump was used to implement things Hillary could never have done. Expose Patriots and then get them to sit on their butts until it’s too late. Of course Parler was used for that purpose also. Only reason I am slightly doubtful about my view on that document is if you google it all other identical documents show the signature but not the President print?
05 Feb 2021 12:58:19 Bit more on trump and what's meant to be going on? Steve Pieczenik goes back on with Alex Jones
{Ed033's Note - Insider Steve Pieczenik appears to have been incorrect about what would happen with the Jan 20th inauguration. What it shows is that we can't rely on any one thing any of these insiders or people receiving 'inside info' say. Some things they say are correct and some things are incorrect.
06 Feb 2021 08:38:03 This has been my issue with the conspiracy world atm Ed. Seems to be all smoke and no fire! It seems more likely that people are doubling down on their predictions about trump, rather than admitting defeat.
I feel if we just believe any video we watch because it suits our opinion, does that make us any different from the 'sheeple' many of us think need waking up?
I dunno, I guess I want evidence or at least something tangible before I go airing it! We get smeared so easily if not.
04 Feb 2021 23:48:11 I can't find a way to link this to the thread, sorry Ed.
The problem I have, regardless of my knowledge, is that people are quoting things that aren't there. Which is never a good thing to bring to a debate.
why would one definition be in a certain edition of a law dictionary, but not the next?
This is not arguing with you. Just my thought process.
Appreciate your insight. ( and links and previous info)
{Ed033's Note - Ok, i'll let you in on a little secret :); in Legalese, any word can mean anything. So that means there is nothing special about any Black's Law Dictionary or any other Legal Dictionary.
When i write a document, i'm supposed to define each word used in the document myself and create a dictionary within the document and i'm supposed to number the pages and bind the document together somehow such as with super glue, rivets etc.
i could be lazy and write that each word is defined by Black's Law 7th Edition Dictionary, but i might find that it doesn't define a word like i want it to.
If you think about it, when they're writing International Treaties, they don't want any single word being misconstrued by another party, so they're going to have to define each word used in a bespoke dictionary.
However, i'm sure you've read legal documents and there's no dictionary with it or any indiction of which dictionary is to be used. So we read them in English, but are we interpreting it correctly if we read them in English? Should we ask the sender of the document which dictionary should be used to interpret the Legal form/document? The answer is only qualified legal people can interpret legal documents.
People who are not legally trained and have been to court [in a public court House] multiple times realise that the less they say the better. In fact, what they come to realise is that the Administrator [who likes to think they are the Judge even though they aren't sworn in as a judge], is interpreting any spoken word you say as Legalese so the spoken words can mean whatever the Adinistrator decides they mean, which weakens your case. So in the end people realise all they can repeat to the Administrator is something like, i refer you to my paperwork.
Every legal dictionary has attempted to give a generalised meaning to Legal words, but there is no actual definitive definition of any Legal word.
