Legal Political Authority in the Adult World by Lindgren

[Craig Lindgren]

2013 (unfinished)
Legal Political Authority in the Adult World
by C.A Master Lindgren, B.Sc

Well, it's complicated. What is [Authority].?
We start with our Father and our mother.
They may or may not be right. Right here means correct.

There are two(2) basic theories that I am presenting here for our purposes, they are:

1. creation
2. darwin

What does this mean.?
It means spiritual belief or;

1. made in God's divine image (meaning, purpose,)
2. primordial soup (meaningless, nothing,)

So why this topic.? Quite simply, because it's importent, whether your station is high or low, great or small.

We shall have to take the time to understand and meditate upon this importent matter.

Let us ask ourselves, [who] is the legal Ruler.? What does [Ruler] mean.? It means [rule]'s, which come from “the King” and “the law”, which is none other than [“the Government”]. This refers to “the [King]'s {choice}” decision, selection, or preference, culminating of course in legal terms Judgement.

[Edict 1]
(What is an edict.? An edict is a proclamation by special High Command, [Legal Right], a pre-emptory right, by which is issued “legal legislation”, otherwise merely known as written Law, which's interpretation comes back to “the Court” who is legally entitled to issue it.
now then):

Rule Number 1: No [torture], “snip”.

Rule Number 2: No [violation]s against little ones who are under the age of five(5), the age of self sufficiency and under the age of ten(10), the age of self decision, “paper cut”.

Rule Number 3: No treachery, “coconut lie” nor breach of any one persons' [personal privacy] fromto and including their bathtub, “rock”.
(the end words or phrases are disclaimers, they require interpretation and legal judgement)

The rules have been found to “stand the test of time”, thus, may be foundational rules for an everlasting [Empire].

A [republic] may stand in the greater light of the Empire.

Coin 0[nth]. Israel bears the Empire's, “emperor's point of law”. Figurative time “7:42”, “a tick in time”, being the Ruler or first and last Authority.
Coin 1. Europe & Africa or “the Old World”. Figurative time “7:41”.
Coin 2. North & South America or “the New World”. Fig. time “6:40”.
Coin 3. Japan & India or “the Orient”. Figurative time “5:39”.
Coin 4. Australia & New Zealand. Fig. time “4:29” or X:xx. World dungeon time

Regularily, all three(3) [coin]s are Right but they can't all be right therefore “the World requires a Ruler”, at Israel.

World War 2, 1939-1945, roughly determined the right side of the coin as being “semitic” and\or “political”, as compared with anti-semitic or anti-political. As it is said, you may not be opposed to “old deep pockets”, him or herself, for the purposes of politics. This [mean]s the ten(10) commandments basically or from another approach of Law you could say;

(a.) “the sky is blue in color”,
(b.) “pi is = to 3.14(digital, analog;decimal, fraction)(debate)”, &
(c.) “there is a fig leaf on the statue of David”, as well
(i.) “you may not eat horse meat”, further
(ii.) “you must be circumcised”
Of course, let us not forget the above noted three(3) rules or dare I say near [(Absolute) Maxims].

So then, “[the King] and the queen” are literally and technically “the Government”. Politics, history, war, tyranny and Government being what they have been through history this means that it is the legal Right of “the King” to make heads or tails of fiction from nonfiction. It also means you could ask the “old man”, myself, in person and if I say so then it is directly and immediately binding Law.

Let us consider, what precisely shall constitute this binding Law.? Let us [think] upon this matter.

It appears to be, [evil] Rebellion versus The [Good] Empire and let me say “you wouldn't believe me if I told you the whole story”, that is the whole tale of entire political ups and downs through history.

You see it is a conundrum that we all share. We do find that for 1. it does mean [right] and [wrong]. It does mean “green check mark” or “red x”.

It is also found to mean [Superior] or [inferior], both literally and practically. The Man sitting on the golden throne in Israel is [superior] to you. He, I, am your superior for the purposes of Law, whether there be any truth in it, is a matter of “politics”, and yet remains so.

I disprefer becoming “political” unless it is absolutely necessary because it then must entail getting the “King of Israel” involved, if it must become all “snooty” and “pooh pooh”. This also means that it can only go to the (defence) or to the (plaintiff), not to both, “and nay neither”. One party must be right in order for the other party to be wrong, or vice-versa.
It's a bit like hitting a brick wall, sometimes, it has been like hitting an iron wall, which is “really the wrong thing”, as we know it to be, for example, from Churchill vs. Hitler during WW2 and which may I say is good enough for our average purposes of discerning any War.

This is better than half the trouble in politics. 100 politics (Lord, Jesus) vs. 0 politics (Criminal, Satan the Devil). You see, “all things are not equal”, we are not born equal, nor do we have our existences in any precise equality. People who suggest that all things are equal, are not “playing with a full deck” in life.

So we may not want to admit it, but it is one of [Superior] and [inferior].

What's the difference.? Six of one, half dozen of the next. “Two hands, two feet and two eye balls”. You the reader, me the writer, any person, what's the difference.?

1. What is the difference seriously.?
2. What is the difference non-seriously.?
Humour me here.

Let us go back to the simplest question we can think of, concerning the matter at hand, to help us clarify it to entire propriety, before we proceed.:
“Is there a difference, in general, any.?”
A. [yes]
{maybe} or
B. [no]
The answer is individual, and may not be forces, it is each person's own {choice}, and it each person's own decision, but let us presume there is a [correct] answer.

Now let us continue to think upon this matter until we come to the Right conclusion.

Here is another piece of legal legislation that may be interpreted by “the Court” which was legally entitled to issue it. You may note that if you have issued one(1) or two(2) pieces you can likely issue droves.

[Edict 2]
Issuance of law, a proclamation or decree.
Let the extremes of violence hereby be ruled out:
You may not commit;
1. “insidious”
2. “doom” or
3. “grizzly”
(the words used are disclaimers, they require interpretation and legal judgement)

All of this happens in light of WW3, which we are fighting now, removed from or directly in sight of the one presiding Authority who is the Government being the country of Israel who is none other than “the King of Israel”.

Let there be four(4) moves on the “chese board” of life:
White Egg (girls)
Black Egg (the colour of the sky could be (black) legally or acceptably or at the very least tolerably for 1-2minutes in Court, in all fairness and for debate)
White Potatoe, (boys); the master
Black Potatoe

So here we are saying “politics does roll down hill”, so while we are about it let us at least raise the question “how does politics work”.!? Let me say that effectively the human-race has not heard of politics before the return of Christ the Redeemer. “People are politics.” As well, you can only be [for] or [against] the Lord, “nay neither”. You must {choose} one or the other, each individual.

If the propitiant won't aide the “old man”, then I say strike me down, but in selecting against “old man” and [100]politics, yours the propitiant's choice will default to ([0]politics), “what is this,?” which would be the only remaining alternative.

Now, what constitutes a [decision].?
1. [yes],
{maybe}, and
2. [no].

When given any biological organism: mollusc, frog, reptile, cat, dog, human female, human male;
You have three(3) choice's, which are:
1: Aid,
2: benignity, or
3: malice

And so let me say here, don't mind this the good word, it's the Good News.!

It is the age old question of, “politics and Government.”

What would the difference be,? What is the relation between all things great and small.?

An “old man” is required in fact, to stay on top of it all for us.

The time then is:
Gold Coin 1 “7:41”
Silver Coin 2 “6:40”
Bronze Coin 3 “5:39”

or we could just say three(3) brass thrones, all things being equal, or all things being presumed. Irregardless, “six of one half a dozen of the other”, and, this leads us to our (figurative time) of “7:42” at Israel, which yields our corrected [dungeon time] of, say, “4:29” at Australia & New Zealand, or X:xx time.

Sires (and mademoiselles), this is WW3 and we're engaged in it right now. It's (your) {choice} or (mine). Let us at least raise the [question], “Who's choice is it”.?!! afterall.

Binding law is turns out to be the {choice} of a human-being, namely, “the King of Israel”.

We find then that politics is an angelicaly complicated and manifestly divurging topic.

Now we're burgeoning into the shoes, toothpaste, clothing, food,[legal] military boots, communications operati, as well as philosophy and Law departments, (you may note located in the Arts department).

Let us set the bar above everyone.

What is:

anti-Social, Social
anti-Semite, Semite
anti-Political, Political
anti-Religious, Religion([legal, valid])

What precisely may constitute the perfect pair of Government shoes, “that will sell”, and if we have political opponents that must be opposed, I, the Government, for (1)one will make a stand and oppose anti-semites or irreligious and if indeed we live as it is suggested, in a “Free market economy”, (Republic) or Empire, where we may say if we're not having it shoved down our throats, such as would be in a Society say that is at Liberty, we then are in a Society that is at (Freedom of choice), by comparison, which is a “political atmosphere” where we the [good Empire] may live under the dry umbrella of a [moderate measured market economy], we find, we shall have to make a shoe that sells.!

We have heard it been said “buyer beware”.
I am now suggesting the time is ripe for “seller beware”. [Money] is a precise thing, that is, if indeed it is [“legitimate legal Government money”], however, “any bag of potatoes”, or any commodity is found to be an [imprecise] thing, therefore this (all) must entail the [more] Government OverLordShip. Prices don't fluctuate on commodities.

We, the Government, can make one(1) million shoes and one(1) million tubes of toothpaste, yet why or why not are these things going to sell.? Furthermore, “what is the price,”. I advise, somewhere between “purple” and “pluto”, and afterall, the masses make the value of a dollar, a dollar, a dollar. Let us also raise the question, does the Government “need to get rich”.? and while we're about it, let us consider the question “is the Government a friend or an enemy”.?

1. existence, life, baby, youth, old man
2. jail, death, eye for an eye, 10, 20, 30 or more backlashings.
The question of life doesn't precisely on go forever.

I'm presenting now something of a straight-laced example of Capitalism now, as the Government, say similar to a pace car on the racetrack.

You see one may not mislead the populace by charging 300-400 or 500% “profits”, [because], I the Government, say it is [illegal] or on the “wrong side of the line of the law” or “Against the Law” or “OutLaw”.

Let me now present some examples:

1. A [manufacturing process], Capitalism;
you are presumed to own the equipment, building and property outright
turn on a light bulb, plug in the telephone
you may hire an employee or two

“So I'll allow the expenses”, but, Capitalism is not a “get rich quick scheme” nor is capitalism a guarantee. It is a venture like gambling.

I'll allow about 125% - 130% for a manufacturing process.
100% is for the basic materials, 25 – 30% for expenses, and this includes 0.10cents or 0.15cents in your pocket, which is pure “profit”.

Ex. bake a cake. Eggs, flour, salt, sugar, milk, whatever.
Cost of the ingredients, just for arguments sake: $10.00
I don't care if it takes you 3hrs to bake the cake or 6 hours to bake the cake. I don't care if you answered the phone four times or 10 times and it doesn't matter to me if you turned on three lightbulbs or 4 lightbulbs.
Full Retail Price: $13.00/ per cake

2. [Store], again Capitalism;

a jewellery store for example which being non-necessities, you may find, “there is no way to know how many customers you will get.”
there are similarities to a manufacturing process though, so I'll allow you 110% for as a storekeep.

3. [Farm], capitalism, approved by the Government, or noted as such;

let us look at a farm briefly. A farm is a bit of an oddity.
we're not really profiteering, it's not a manufacturing process, and it's not precisely capitalism. It falls into the bracket of employment or career. Farming is not considered gambling by the Government. It is considered a for profit venture, that is a calculated risk.
I the Government will pay you 25% profit, here's how it works,
if you grow a “bushel of carrots”, I'll pay you 75% totalling your tractor maintenance, fuel, lights, seeds, telephone, hires, etc. then calculate 25% upwards from there, and that's “profit”, which will equal 100% “the price”, or base “wholesale” cost (not including a middle wareho(Government, Post Master General)useman's expenses, or 2 or 3 or 4, such middlemen, depending on distance, and complexity).

4. [Taxes]
taxes still exist with Jesus2 as the King.
“if you accept the one that I send to you, you accept me. If you accept me, you accept our Father in heaven, “who are perfect”.”
%5-20%, 25% or 30%, individual personal choice, recorded and demographically assigned
you could select 0% (but a big flashing light will go off) “may I suggest 10%, to quote unquote fly under (my)the radar.”
I will forward some automatically to “the Church” for you from the State as an automatic tithe (3%), whichever denomination you are associated with,
it's something of the lightbulb principal of taxes, I keep a 4% - %5 [government life support] model ready, in the event of a catastrophic run against taxes, for whatever the political reason. Let us project that we're going to get 10% each quarter year on average but there's no way to predict this ahead of time with any precision. Essentially every quarter year is a (vote), a type of (referendum) or [polling], which happens to be the way I prefer it. It's not a given, it's not an absolute. It keeps it everything on it's toes slightly, as things were.

Let us now come to [debate].
You have heard of “the devil's advocate” before. Let me say, I myself like debate a little once it is set up correctly, although it can become a little droll if not Ruled correctly. Nevertheless, once it is set up correctly it's better than “no debate” at all. You don't want a Government that avoids debate, because, “the Government” will have to address “the odd human question” from time to time for one thing, not to mention any number of run of the mill questions. Furthermore, the official government of the world is in the position of “old deep pockets”, myself, therefore, we'll be looking for the truth and correct answer each time, by this my the Government's whim.

This brings us to Free Men vs. servants(slaves), for a moment. The more a “Free man” says that he or she “will not be Ruled”, the more they commit “treachery, heresy, treason, skull-duggery, Mutiny”, whathaveyou, and the list can go on.... “They then are in rebellion” [against] “the official government” which is (illegal), and further winds putting themself(s) “in the shoes of the Government” as well, to further add salt to the wound, (wittingly) or (unwittingly). So you see the dilemma of “Free Men”. If you claim that you are a “Free Man” too far, you will wind up in Rebellion against the Government, and you will end up being “against the Law”. “Much as before” in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Egyptian, Byzantine, Italy, Englande; so it is now it is in & of Israel, now and forever.

Here's how a [debate] works:
“you find your quarter field”, or if you want your “kitty corner”,
Starbucks vs. McDonald's
the Church vs. the Casino
Italy vs. Greece
husband and wife
Crown England.e vs. Crown France.e
White vs. Black
“There is no “Purple”, otherwise contact Jesus2”, it is an anomaly.
Also, let us note, there is some “win lose” to debate.

(A republic) is an open forum where every person is allowed to exist one with the next in a modest procession of equality. Six of one, half dozen of the next, [before] “Superior and inferior” occurs, which that would come [after] and is a legal legitimate Empire.
This means something akin to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” towards something greater, from something less. From a republic to an Empire. People playing at “small politics” shall generally recall to mind they have [none] of it. They do not personally hold the “emperor's point of law” nor are they the Empire. “Small politics” is the first reason a bullet ever left a gun (in any violent manner) and may very well be the last reason a bullet ever left a gun. Each and every war may be reduced to Hitler vs. Churchill of WW2 fame, in general light, for our purposes.

A (republic) stands in the greater light of the Empire.

It's debatable. It's contestable in Court.

The Sun comes out during the day and the stars come out at night though. Let us be rationalists, as well, let us apply our reason. What does this all mean.?

The defence “black move” with opening statement and (re-buttal) vs. the plaintiff “white move” with (re-tort), 2nd of two opening statements and closing argument and of course the Court which would bear the “clear golden propriety move”, or 3rd move, is politics and the Government, or the official third party, reserving the right of Judgement. “Let him who is without Sin cast the First Stone.”

It shall be (fair) as opposed to (unfair) argument, under the light of day, before the Court.

So, in some classic debate within the Church of God, we have:
1. Holy Western Latin Roman Catholic Church,
“'butter on a white bun”
First Coin
first point
plaintiff

2. Holy Eastern Greek Orthodox Church,
“'margerine on a whole-wheat bun”
they also have a point
underdog
defendant

The Government holds the side or almighty 3rd edge of the coin, as opposed to black or white, which is (their) Power & Authority or Judgement, what we might call “'butter on a brown bun”.

This is the first debate as I say it's impressive before it's dull. We like it to be impressive first then it can be dull or blunt.

There are usually a few points to consider from either side, some professed experts, various witnesses, some recommendations, counsel, and then Legal findings or legal terms (final) [approbate] “all things being equal” “all things being presumed” (withstanding)(appropriate) judgement (this is both a world arguement and a world agreement). [understand](master yoda)(“understand all of life now in this one moment”)

Let us consider, righteous anger vs. unlawful disobedience.
You're a human-being, I'm a human-being.
'6-of-one, 'half-dozen-of-the-next.
However,! there must be [Authority], so we find
that it is a “[legal right]”, the Power that the Government holds.

Respect and honor.
Honor and Respect.

We also find that [the Government] “is a requirement”.

“Lost in (nebulous meanderings). Where the heck was I,? Oh, yes”

Now, I'll write how these things came about. You see in the stone age it was a republic. Who are you.? Who am I.? What is the Government.? These are some matters for [debate] and they are philosophical [question]s.

Four Pillars, a stone dais, a little ivy and a podium. A republic.
Twenty persons(20) allowed on the Government dais with the Master debater being, “the 21-st person” holding say “the conch and the gavel”, (representational) Power.

This has progressed a time or two, to “the 22nd person”,
“Crown and Sceptre”, which brings us to, the notion of [time] as well as to “irregards” or “efacement”.
The Crown or the Court, reserves the right to find [guilt] or [innocence], with some measure of “final binding Law” and right.

We see that [endless debate] is not useful, some questions having already been answered, satisfactorily for the intensive purposes of 1. Science and 2. Art in this our old age and so we find that since debate cannot approach “infinite sums of time”, “[debate must occur within finite sums of time]”. In fact, The Courts time and money is “priceless”. This is because, herein I will explain, the propitiant's [time] ('rounds down to) [0] thus worth $0.00. The Court's [time] ('rounds up to) (technically infinite) [1] thus worth $1.00. The Crown as they say has the power of “the almighty buck”.

This, over all, is in fact a complex point of law coming down to what I refer to as “euripede's”or“sophocle's” “point of law”. Remember, if you (choose) to get into a personal argument or War with the Emperor of God at Israel, you will be relegated to 49% politics, “no questions asked” and the Emperor will be promoted to 51% politics, “no questions asked” which will then mean that you will be 'rounded down to 0 politics or quinessential false evil and the Emperor will be 'rounded up to 100 politics or quinessential true good.

You see, there have been both good and evil examples throughout history, legal or otherwise, of both correct and incorrect republic sections, as well as correct and incorrect Empires as we recall “Ottoman Empire”'s or “Cotish Empire”'s.

At any rate, “this brings us back to ourselves anyway”, everyone.

The audience, we find, in a republic, which may be a 120 person (voting, polling,) [audience] allowed in a moderate formal republic.

Let us look at here the topic of “Divinity in Humanity”.
This is why this is yet above a complex point of law.
“T'is” is where the government is [right], [no matter what], and
up above in the heavens bearing witness is The Good Lord our God, with His Son on earth. The Government of course must Rule. Otherwise it's all just a disheveledy mess of garbage & non-sense.

Legally you should Respect the Government, it being the official “[King]'s {choice}”.

You see, this is not (something) that we immediately understand now or through history. [It] is life.

“A gold throne in Israel is right”, for the purposes of law. One(1) gold throne must exist on earth somewhere for 1, it just so happens to exist in Israel for 2, and this brings us to a result that is thereby “political” for 3, and by this unfortunate circumstance, turn of events, that is World War 3(three) we come to entire legal “off-the-hook” which is Diplomatic Immunity for 4.

“Even so come quickly Lord Jesus, come.”

Now, this here is just a vague or rough reference analogy for purposes herein. Let us say that Vitamin B9 is God. There is a strong argument for it's existence and a lot of people believe in it. However, we cannot see it. Let us call Christ the Redeemer, the Alpha & the Omega, (his) physical reality a 1/4 speck of atomic Copper Cu. Let say signs & wonders associated with (his) coming is (his) Vitamin B12. Now, if evil even exists (and we feel that it should not) let us call that a 1(one) 'cursmidgeon of Chromium Cr and the “influence of the Devil” vitamin B6. Although it's not the “real thing”, it is thought to have power or effect. Now let us say if indeed there is even one(1) 'cursmidgeon of Chromium in existence, by inductive reasoning, we may conclude that Vitamin B9 must exist, since actual evil could not exist withstanding “God does not allow it to exist”. Nonetheless, with or without evil's existence, God and Master may yet exist, irregardless. Take faith & grace.

The First and Last Dollar. Legal Politics.
“real legitimate authorized Government [money]”.
[0]nth$

Chain of Command
Chain of Authority, Judgement or Causality.
“It only goes up” or “it goes down”. There are only two sides in a war.

If unknown person(s) are the enemy of “the Government” and cannot they themselves say that “they are the Government” because they must require a “special point of Law”, that is, “Euripede's” or “Sophocle's point of law”, then they must be (evil Rebels), and sadly on occasion there “must be war”, fittingly, accordingly.

Where is God's Son down here in all this non-sense and chaos.?

Let me add in here and “who (precisely) cares what people think”.?

Hatred & evil down here on earth are not right. Many people can not even “tell the difference”.

“Why good and evil exist in time&space and in humanity through history is something of a question for the ages & the sages”. “Peasants in all their wisdom” had apparently decided to get into absolute dead evil, and now need to be destroyed, for about 800Million years and this is the immediate trouble, I shall say.

So here we are at four(4) lights of debate:

Two lights of Law(consequence) and two lights of preference or inconsequence.

Law Ex. Let us say, [because] I am not able “to serve food at a fine dining restaurant”, for standard Government proof purposes, I am “not employable, for the purposes of Law”,.

Preference. Ex. However, there are a further two(2) lights of debate and these are merely point of view, in the declinative or affirmative sense that is to say as a matter of preference, not immediate consequence. These are actually important as well because it “depends on who is looking” at the problem. Again, “6 of one, half dozen of the next”, or perhaps one man's junk is another man's treasure.

Carrying on, politics we may note is one rung above religion.
[Religion] is not the same thing as [politics].
They are on opposite ends of the pole. However, they are not diametrically opposed or “entirely at odds”. In fact we find that they are “one half bone related”, such that this reveals the trueism that “if you can't talk about religion, you can't talk about politics” and vice-versa. You may not have the uppermost rung without the lesser rung, in this instance. One does not equate to the other, but they have something of an immanent co-existence.

I myself happen to disprefer “non-believers” on the grounds that they have been found to be rude, crass and ignorant, “without a right”.(“Pity the non-believer” and “Paerish the Atheist”.)

So, we've got at least one(1)(or 2) point(s) to make.
Punch out a couple(2) of bricks from the Government's debating wall:

1. right to a fair trial

2. basic human right

So, then we may say we “have a point”, and let it go a bit like this.

Now, what is the 3rd brick that allows us to get on to whys and wherefores, in open legal court proceedings, before the Government.?

Let's see; “there are hateful evil vexing spirits”,
and “there is Christ the Redeemer the first and the last”.

Why am I raising this point.?

Well, the topic is, “legal political authority in the adult world”.

Let us apply our minds and be civilized.
We were given two ears and one mouth, as they say to listen first and talk later. As opposed to some people in this ignorant world that apparently have two mouths and one ear. That is the difference.

Dictionary(s) from legal, approved [official] sources, such as:
A British Apple, and
An American Orange,
lead us to see an difference.

What's the reason here.?

Ah.! having a point;

Let us, (punch) out the 3rd brick.

We see that, we only need 1(one) or 2 points in Court, (if that's all we've got), “you don't even need a lawyer”, all things being equal, at the crick-of-the-top, by argument, then with, the King and the queen sitting right there, “it's in their court”, it remains their {choice} and there's no sense assumeing they're the enemy either, because we're at the [one] official legal door of Government. We are at the door of the [trust company] on earth as it is in heaven.

“So I was considering going for a swim”, in the salt water but it was a shark infected area. Saying “that's all we have”, then that is a reason. That is in fact a “point”.

Do we need a multitude of points,?

i – it was cold
ii – i'm allergic to salt-water
iii – i had to leave suddenly, to meet someone

You can't control fish going up the river, or a bear feeding on one, so why try and control humans.? [Ruler] versus [Comptroller].

For comparison purposes,
Writer – non-fiction(truthful), real
Author – fiction(not truthful), imagination
Further, we don't require at this time any 'apple'oranges', “tarnation nonsense”, if you will.

Now then,
A or B
1 or 2
a relatively harmless seeming mere {choice}

[Question]
1 What is it.?
2 {Who} is it.?
These are legal legititmate questions.

After all, in this instance, it is this my own discrete 1(one)-unit paper. “There's nothing precisely [legal] about it”, take it from the pro, what I mean by this, is that it doesn't have to be any particular way. Legal means right (as compared with wrong), there are things in here that could be termed incorrect, yet, for artistic expression purposes, they are allowed or included.

That's all there is to having a point, “because I tell you so”, and this is coming from Authority, but, let us say presuming you or I are telling the truth.

You're point is like your mind:
It may be solidarity, proper train of thought, reason.
It may be in absolute or entire accord with {the way, the truth, the life, and this the Law}.

People may laugh at the “3 monkeys”, but,
I say, tut, tut, tut.!!!
“See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil”.
I happen to be 1/8th of a 'smidge superstitious, so we should not use the word evil in common parlance.

We then are friends in Christ the Lord.

It's legal or acceptable to be religious, yet at the same time we don't have to go on all day about it.

Now I say, it is hard to “lose your religion”, as long as you remember the three cardinal rules.

(long time coming “to a point”, here. We're still looking for the 3rd brick. Bear with me.)
Magic.!:

There are in fact four(4) kinds of “magic”, yes magic;

1. White magic ((jesus))

2. Black magic (evil)

3. Men (god magic)

4. Ladies (nature magic)


So where does this take us, and why are we talking about magic here.?

What does magic have to do with [Authority].?
Well, something of a principle part. [Why].?
The reason is because every authority figure you've ever had is magical in some way, light or form.

We may then in some light ask, “Are we getting [good] water or are we getting [bad] water.?” “Are we getting [good] food, or are we getting [bad] food.?” I say, we'd better check, or we'd better be sure.

White Magic(Master) is legal.
Black Magic(Criminal, Dangerous Offender), is unlawful.

“It's actually something of a confounding thing to be human” People tend to underestimate it, though a little.

The [human condition] is found to be something that is common to us all.

Every good cop had it.
Every bad cop had it.
Every good justice had it.
Every bad justice had it.

“Politics is not a necessary thing”,
it is perhaps like this, since, “we're big boys and girls”,
however,!
“We find that politics must exist.”
So, we've got a friend named Christ the Lord who sits on a solid gold throne in Israel.

Political Authority has to do with (lawful) and (unlawful) activity but don't be too quick to tell me “I've broken the law” yet, [because], it's all just make believe, mirrors, apples, and dwarves.
Again, however,! I say, there [must] be one(1) God loving Point of Law,! somewhere in time & space.

Now, this means further that politics has a right to make “political suggestion”. Don't anger the Emperor of God at Israel forever, on my watch. Human good and human evil are not the same thing.

Rolling with 1 1/2 (punches)kicks vs. rolling with 3 punches(kicks)
and black humor vs. say, “being able to take a jibe”, or laugh at one's self. This is (consequential) which would be “burned the house down” as compared with (inconsequential) which would be “dust on my shoes” .

So we're at a place, where nobody has any politics(money), when in fact we turn around, and everybody has politics, because, we live in a “political world” where there is such a thing as “political intrigue” and political people. In fact, every person is “political”. The person sitting next to you is political.

Do you know why,?
It is because of this: reality, knowledge, and value.
So what are we missing here,?
The thing is not yet (un)grasped. It is not realized.

So I can make a “political suggestion” about another person in society (This Is Importent) and, listen, it becomes [true].!
This is an odd rare Power in the World.
It is a good thing I'm Christ the Redeemer, and not misleading you, such that Power is in the hands of the right or correct person.

“Don't play with your food”. et al.

“Politics” is an (odd) thing.
(unless it is a “funny” thing.)

Fate, destiny.
These are not the same things either.
Do we want a happy ending or do we want a sad ending.?
This is actually interpretative and depends on who you're asking and depends on what you mean, but, basically we may say that we all want the same thing. The same end.

“Money”, if we the political receiver as opposed to the political propitiant, care to think about it, is “nothing more than political”.
The reason you have no money is because “it's political” and the reason you have alot of money is because “it's political”.

In fact, we find that money is quite rapidly a very real thing.
Although I could “print” billions.

“Even in a paper doll model”, rather than in a limited gold coin system, I could not manufacture 40billion for each person, because it would convalescence the system, further I don't only have 1 or 2 dollars in circulation. Money at the crick of the top must be “a bit of a sweet spot”.

Somewhere between “purple” and “pluto”, “is the correct government money”, per person, per instance, or per set of circumstances.

You see, it comes down to property rights. It is fair and acceptable to suggest that Israel is the owner of the world.

There is some establishment, industry, and service, and “something to work with”, to it all.

The Past - essentially a closed door, unless you have a time machine
The Present – today, let's call it a 24hr period,.
The Future – not pre-determined, cannot be written in stone.

This brings us back again to one of the key words in the title, [authority], which means what,?

“When you were 10-years old, you the conscript or adherent,
had a Daddy and a mommy, and when they said it was time for bed, it was time for bed, right or wrong.

So now we're older, age 20, age 30, age 40, and we find that we still have an Authority, whether we realize it or not. It is “Politics”

Although, a thug with a gun is meaningless, in the Chain of Command, and in the Chain of Judgement or Causality, “legal, political Authority” does have a preliminary Right, and pro pro.

It may be said “that you're either good at politics or not”.
It's something of a service industry, all told.

Legal political boundaries both personal and Large scale like [country], [continent] and [empire](s). These are like mass belief, which presently yield as [true], “because the Court, says it is so”.

Empires, continents and land boundaries legally separated even by vast expanses of ocean water are “discrete” [jurisdictional] boundaries that are understood and approved.

Race, tradition, nationality, language and culture.
These differences also are approved “by the official Government”.
As opposed to say non-difference, nothing or some “vain non-sensical equality”.

Suggestion, mnemonics and “hum”. There are [true] (or false) “psychological suggestions” occurring in the airwaves even as we speak.

The truth is, if good politics doesn't need it, we don't need it. A political world is a better world. Furthermore, this could be called rhetoric. What is rhetoric.? It's all true, you already knew it, and I'm re-iterating it here. It's a little rhetorical.

“Nobodies got a sense of humour for politics”, I swear.!
Lawful right means legal it means political.

Now we could [debate] a few things.

Murder. A Capital Crime.
What does this refer to.?
“It is against the Law”.
What does this mean.?
Well, Cain & Abel. A Mystery.
********************
“There is a point of (debate) there.”

The 7th commandment, for example, is:
“thou shalt not kill.”

I, the legal official First and Last Court, (may or may not agree) whether a crime has been committed. Perhaps it's only 20m in Court, all things being equal, but it requires legal Judgement.

I don't believe in nothingness, or primordial soup, I happen to believe in Made in His Divine Image, and I happen to be [the Government], all things being equal or all things presumed, however, this is not necessarily, absolutely precisely withstanding.

Now then, let's come back to the [mean]ing of “Against the Law”.
Well, “let's rub our two or 3 pennies together”,
It means as compared with “for the Law”. Right,?
What (they) should not do is treat people like dogs or lemers. I could not be angrier at, at stem, this point in history, in some light. Yet, the Government is Right [before] the Criminals.

So, what is this then “the Law”.?

History is a bit of a cusp wave, a bit of a strong wave. It turns out that it's “semitic” and “political”, as opposed to anti-Semitic and anti-Political.

As we, the Court say, I always like to stress that the defendant “has a point”, for a couple minutes in Court, although, I the Government, ““Judgeological services”” which is The Lord of Creation, Preservation, and Destruction, we may not, holding the mighty point.

Strong politics vs. weak politics,
“You could call the Master's politics strong” or
“You could call the Master's politics weak or faint”.
“It depends how you look at things”.
There are always at least too ways to look at things, for intensive purposes, nothing is final, until I say it is so, then it is temporarily final for earthly purposes.
(“some of these rotten children, they deserve death”)

Tut, tut, tut, Though.

Now, it depends on your meaning, and “intention of heart”.

Back to our item of debate since we cannot, avoid the Government, in this matter who hold firm to the tenet of “Made in his Divine image”, all things presumed, all things being equal, how can we the defence “have a point” without involving nihilism.? Nihilism is not seen, in Court, as a [fair] strategum or approach.

Well, you see the alleged culprit, has a couple(2) of points, more or less:

1. right to a [fair] trial,

2. they still have a basic human right

What is point number 3 here.,?! which will allow us to proceed to point 4 and 5, which were simply whyfors and whereabouts.?

Oh,! that was it,

3. “we may not “pre-Judge”, children

The reason is [because] it is not our legal right to Judge. Only [the (one pinhole) of the Government] has the Right to Judge people & things. Human evil & human good are not the same thing. Beethoven's 5th(10 times out of 10). Bach (9 times out 10), best of 7, best of 3, no less.

“Here lies Les More, 2 bullets from a .44, no less, no more.”

And so, that was it.!

We don't want the court hearing to go on for 10 years, nevertheless, and at once “it's 20-minutes or 1 hour & 20 min in Court”, given, and so we get our day in Court.

“That leads us to two(2) sides of the coin”, and let me say for the record, nobody knows this better than the Government. [Debate]able.

“Not necessarily absolutely or immediately, but 9 times out of 10, it's perhaps a bit clear, that the Culprit will be in the black seat of the two(as opposed to the white seat):

Chain of Command (who)
Chain of Causality (whom), (or Judgement, Reality,)

So, the Police talk to the Police who talk to the Police,
and the Judge talks to the Judge who talks to the Judge,
and they have preliminary Authority working for “the establishment” although only “the Government” per se that is “the money”, has the right to cause Judgement.

“Only God is my Judge”, you've heard it before,
“let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

Crown's case is simple, apples are apples, and oranges are oranges, if you will.
Opinion, consent, statement.
The Judge may as well be A,
the Crown prosecution may as well be B,
and The defendant may as well be C.
What is “the hypotenuse” there,?
“That's how it works in a [real] Court of Law”.

We could pull out the good book, say, as a foundational text and a rudimentary directive text, and it is still for our purposes true today.

(insert)The Sabbath is on Saturday. Day 1 is Monday. Day 7 is Friday, “on God's terms”. “We couldn't celebrate on Friday, and so we held the Sabbath, on Saturday, Day 1 in earth terms, leaveing Sunday as Day 7 in earth terms, and again, the 7th day is the sabbath but, we could not celebrate on Sunday, so we hold the Sabbath, each Saturday. In fact, (try) and keep it holy and [celebrate], balance.

(continue:)So the defence has committed a “crime”, let us say.
What is a [crime]. Grime. “Dirty as opposed to clean.”
This brings us back to “the Law”.

There is “[Christmas time]”.
There is 'Halloween time'.

Y - let's call Christmas variable Y
X - let's call this variable Halloween
These variables are not co-incident,
nor are they identical.

“Keeping the Law on the Right side of the Law”, and
“keeping the crime on the wrong side of the law.”
This is a kind of line I draw in the sand.
I've drawn a few lines for reference.

The Law is both figurative and literal.
What do I mean here.? It means it's technical and Literal.
That means you can approach the Law a couple of ways,
theoretically and principlely,
1. solid gold throne in Israel
2. “the actual person, that is biological organism, sitting on it.”

Though, the Law basically refers to the Government's right to Judge.

You know, you can't bump the system, but, you can “rock the carrol”.
“You could, legally, “tilt the jukebox”, once”.

So, carrying on,
1. which party is [guilty] or [innocent]
“this is a determination by and of the Government, this is the [King]'s {choice},”
2. presuming, say, guilt, what would the legal penalty of Law be there,?

There is nebulous, and there is certain.

Cloud and mountains, are not the same thing.

“The shadow of doubt”.
The shadow of doubt is on a scale from
1 to 100

with a shadow of doubt on either end,
perhaps 0.5%, “but which end are we working with”.?
There is 1/2 a 'smidge of shadow of external circumstances, external manifestation doubt.
There is no shadow of internal doubt attributed to the Lord thy God.

“Now I'll apply the shadow of doubt where, when, and as I see fit”, as the Government.
It's not unlike the painter at the canvas.
Let's paint a [true] picture, and, go see the 'Mon with the glob(v)e.

There is a question and there is an answer,
“a right & correct answer”, if I may,
then it is settled.

Muddy water, is now mud from water, with a clear line of dispensation.

“What's the Capital Crime'ist (person's) point.?”
It is that he/or she may not be Cain, they may be Abel.

That's about all there is to (murder).
“It's against the Law”.
“It is a crime”.

We know what these terms mean and so unless the murderer is innocent, he will be subject to the penalty of Law.

[Life], [debate],
just life as we know it.
Existence. Human life,
Where do we come from and
to where do we return,?
Does life serve purpose,?
Frogs, snails, cats, dogs, human-beings.
“Is there anything wrong with life”.? It's a question.
What does this mean.?
Is there anything wrong with the existence of a frog.?
Has the lowly frog done something wrong.?
The frog, if it's the one we're thinking of,
an average one, that, can nearly do no wrong.
A relatively benign harmless creature.
How about humans,? what sets us apart.?
We are capable of [right] and [wrong].
How is this possible.?

Humans are capable of right and wrong, because, we're sentient and “divided”.

We see 2 or more, thus, “bear the possibility”
of either: A (3)
[or] {choice}
B (1)
{Choice}, selection, preference, or decision.
Frogs are not capable of this.

So, “we realize that our selections [make a difference]”.
Re-affirmation, of premise, safe presumption, in Court.

[Debate], “it's debateable, or argueable”, there's some contest or remaining question.

“Not every human-being is born equal,” neither now through the context of history.

This is because there is a time line, as well as history, which provides meaning and context both to our commonality.

We are not identical nor positively equal, but similar.

“What are we not concluding here”.?
Sometimes it's useful to consider a [question],
to confirm, (or deny), our circumspect.

A good emulator is perhaps, at it's height, 60%, of the original piece or masterwork.
The “real thing” is let us say 100%. A master work.

Say “there is a Picasso”, a work of Abstract Art (as opposed to a Surreal piece OR even one eschelon above, a timeless piece)
and now there is a “copy of Picasso”,
To the naked eye, some people wouldn't even notice or care, much less reconstitute for the difference for the original.

“Having the luxury of [the difference], is not for every person.”
In fact, specifically the luxury of the difference belongs to the Government.

Where are we.?

“Some souls(humans), they say, have “scratched the record””.
Reality cannot be found.
“Reality is a bit like a rock.”
Not everyone is a pro in and of reality.
You have to remove the subjectivity that is obscuring your objectivity, “and yet the terms are subjective because
it's personal”. It's unavoidable. We are feeling thinking human beings, thus, politics cannot be a machine. It must be a human-being, because it is personal, if only by one notch.

Politics isn't a cold stone.
Politics isn't just computer non-sense.

Don't bother “suggesting politic”s,
you'll only embarrass yourselfs,
or fail. It cannot be done adequately (in human terms).

Though we find that politics is a requirement.
Thus, we must arrive at the conclusion that is [the Empire].

Theoretically and in principle, we have a (solid) gold throne room (in Israel)(and don't start with me unless you're “somebody special”) which bears both figurative and literal Reality.

This is called “small politics”.
I could get down to “the colour of your shoelaces”, think about this. The shoelace's meaning both principally, relatively, and altogether.
Say, then, are we dealing with “a nose”, or “a booger”.?

Respect and honor,!
honor and Respect,!
and Right.

Who is a {perfect} human authority on earth.?

Legal Political Authority in the Adult World, is actually something of an exceedingly complex subject.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Sanskrit, Spanish, English...

We could argue, or raise a question, in court, knowing or not knowing the answer. Any question.

It doesn't even necessarily have to have a point, precisely, it could be an (abstract)abject question.

“Hair-shirt”.

Let's say there is obvious and there is complex.

2's (23) 8 are relatively elementary.
4's (43) 64 are involved.

Humour. Humour me.
“I don't find some things funny”. This may be legal or illegal.
What humour is to one, may not be humour to another. This then could entail Court.
Law, Right, Personal Privacy and Security.
We adore these terms until it's time to meet Jesus2 on a solid Gold Throne in Israel. You see, you can't have 100.00 politics, it's next to impossible.

In a greater world or larger world, “politics” could even go forth, raise a question or inquest. The Power of (an) interrogative.

When you've got a team of 40 lawyers looking at every phone bill, rental receipt and cheque within $0.20 cents, it is otherwise known as [serious]. Nuclear bombs, 40Billion Dollars, life and death, gold throne(s), kings and queens.

So the power of the Court, also extends, to the power of Interrogative, The Cup of the Christ, the Throne of the King.

“Then not only can I answer a question”, in Court,
“I can ask a question” and get an answer.

How many areas of human questions could there possibly be.?
These four(4):

1. Personal
2. religious
3. government
4. male-female relations
I list Personal first only because of “the way humans are”, and have been known to be.

“Not everyone is the bad man, not everyone is the bad guy”.

So let's review premise:

What is a premise.?
“The grounds we are standing upon”. (they)These(the) are not subjective, they are (found to be) objective. We are standing in Germany. We're standing in Canada. What does this [mean].?

“having it in you to get angry about politics, is then having it in you.” I suppose (what does this mean.?)

[Relation], relativity.
Sometimes, it's hard to see the [relation], “it “takes “a true-seeing Court” to see it.
You see, some things are like 1 + 1 = 2
though, if you've never thought about it
“you could miss the forest for the trees”.

Fun and 'Nuf

The person is age 5, the person is age 10,
the person is age 20.

“We get older.”
What's the difference.?

The difference is this:
“People sometimes forget themselves”. They don't know who they are, they don't know where they are, they don't know what they are doing.

I was thinking about sitting on the Solid Godl Throne, in Israel, then I was thinking about making a “political suggestion”. “I'm the only “politics” in town, and town is earth.” {Who}'s saying they're “politics” now,? No, really, I want to know.

Hang a little mistletoe, and holly in Israel. Put on the Santa hat.

Who is saying they are “politics” now,!? Though, really. No, I really want to know.! the Government

So, if we are to debate [life],

what would the '“butter and a white bun” be, and
what would the '“margerine and a brown bun” be.?

We could conjecture ahead of time without knowing the outcome, also without assuming the outcome and without (pre-supposeing) the answer. We're involved in an inquest you see. We haven't actually had the formal debate, so there is no (official) [outcome].

So what would this all entail.?
How does debate work.?

There are Generals & there are specifics.

The term is [life].
Do we need to question life's existence.?
What is the point of the debate here.? “Life is [good]”.

Let's call one(1) side of the debate: affirmative(+), white move,
Let's call the other side of the debate: declinative(-), black move,
Now, here's how it may be convened:

The two(2) debating parties face the Court, which is, “this the Government”, [the legitimate preferred [King]'s(& [queen], yea, but the “queen” better watch her tart, unless the official 3rd coming arrives, actual [war] between male's and female's, {choice}.)

So, on [my] right, is the accusatory party.
On [my] left is the defamed party.

Queen's are a complicated [accessory], “that are not interesting”, at this time.
Likely, in the very far future, King's would have the slide-rule move, queens, would have the movement of only a position or two.
Land & moiraine.
Software & Hardware.
(am I jokeing or being serious.?)
A Male is intimating the question to a female.

The accusatory party or the defence gets the opening statement which is first arguement.

The defamed party the plaintiff gets 2nd statement.
Next there's an interrogative, re-buttal, re-tort, and closing arguements. The Almighty “last word in” goes to the defamed party.
Which te Court notes.

So what would the 'butter-on-a-white-bun be for the Crown prosecution here.? Let us ask, “Who here is raising the question”.?
The classical defence here is generally not raising the question. They were on the attack, effectively, at once as it were.

Both the accusatory party and the defamed party are considering the liability of the law, then, 'butter-on-a-white-bun is thus raising a question, so, it must have [validity]. We can't ask the question “should life exist”, [because], that would be invalid.

How about, “[Why does life exist,?]”

Better take it to the pro.!!!

It is a philosophical question.

'Butter-on-a-white-bun, doesn't really need a defence, mainly, what 'butter-on-a-white-bun is doing, is raising a question “before the Court”.

Therefore, we conjecture maybe a little about what the defence may say. Why don't we consider it now.

What would 'margerine-on-a-brown-bun be.?
They are thinking about a defence.

The question or hypothesis (hypothetical with proposed answer,) before the Court is:
“[Why does life exist.?]” and the plaintiff wants to win.
There is some “win” and “lose” to debate.
The plaintiff has (second move & last move).

'Margerine-on-a-brown-bun has (first move,), and is defence.

I, the Court, may already be thinking about (my) ['butter-on-a-whole wheat-bun], as well, therefore “life does exist”. This is not a question. This is an existential reality, that we may self-infer.

further,
1. by knowledge(s) and
2. by collaberation, historical (con)text

Now,
'margerine-on-a-brown-bun can be difficult to see sometimes.
“If anybody ever needed help with something it was probably 'margerine-on-a-brown-bun”, the defence.

The plaintiff is already going to have a few points that (we're) going to raise to re-affirm our position:
life is good, life has meaning, life has purpose,.

The defence is thinking,
“So (we) get opening statement,”
and the question is
[Why does life exist].?

1. why shouldn't life exist,!
there's nothing wrong with the question nor the [debate], although,
2. “I don't really care whether life exists or not”,
as the defence.

It's a bit like playing “the antagonist”, to the defamed party's “protagonist”. Counter-points to Protagonists opening statement are not immediately important to the defendant or accusatory party, though they (may very well) be later.

The most importent thing is just to square away first statement,
mind you, the defence can't just be rude, ignorant or uncivilized.
We're having a court debate here. Defence is kind of hoping it comes out in favour of “brown bun” instead of “butter”, which is “the Court's Whim”.

1. life is an individual thing. a personal preference.
2. infringement is a debateable concept or involving a “judgement call”.

“The reason I'm at Court today” is, apparently, because I have been found to be the defendant bringing undue defamation to the question [why does life exist,?], as well as the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is saying I have somehow defamed the question [Why does life exist,?]. (it doesn't have to be perfect, frankly there is no such thing)
“I have done no such thing”, [pleading]

The Court notes that the Accusatory Party claims it's not their responsibility.

Now, the plaintiff hereby addresses the Court.
“Dear Court, I am the Defamed Party here.”
[Why does life exist].?
Must we even address this question at Court.?
Clearly, life exists for a reason. Butterflies, sunshine, trees & green grass.
It's nearly a rhetorical question, that I am (raiseing).

Why not,? Why shouldn't life exist.?

You know, it is clear that
1. life is good
2. life has meaning and
3. life has purpose as well as value

I, the Plaintiff, clearly have no qualms with the existence of life.
The Plaintiff (extorts), (they get to extort if they're careful. The Defence gets to exhort, again if they're careful)
“raison d^etre”.
(opening statements concluded)
The Court. “Does the defence have anything further”.?

1. re-butt
You know that the plaintiff has raised the point
that life is good, life has meaning, and life has purpose and value.
I recommend and put forth, that these are “relative subjective terms.” Although, it may be true for the plaintiff it does not have to be true for the defence, we make recommendation before the Court.

2. The defence would like to raise a point concerning life's [value].
“The defence did not say that life has no value.”
Life's [value] is intrinsic.
We do not need to weigh it in Court,
again, [Why does life exist,?].

The defence here (exhorts),
“ours is not to reason why,
ours is but to do and die”. Emerson

Does the plaintiff have anything further,? “the Court”

1. re-tort: I subject it to the wisdom and intelligence of the Court that the statements, life is good, life has meaning and life has purpose and value, are a truth for both parties, not subjective.

So as we can see “Legal Political Authority in the Adult World”, is no small involvement, not least of all for an intricate philosophical question.

How we, this Court, choose to settle this question, may be partisan, “one way or the next”. This happens to be in fact what politics is.

Let's make a final decision on the question before the Court, at present.

So the question is,
[Why does life exist,?]
We've already re-affirmed that life “does in fact” exist.
The Court agrees that life has [value].
“You could even think monetarily”, if necessary, a butterfly, green grass, sunshine, trees or people.

As for the question of whether life has [purpose] or not,?
What is the definite purpose of a tree or a butterfly.? Does a human being have purpose.?
A human-being “joins the club” of life.
The Court notes that, for our purposes here, the purpose of life, may be ascribed to discipline and order.

What we, the Court may also say is the [reason] life has [meaning] is because life is artistically aesthetic or beautiful and pleasing, and becoming, more so or less, unto the eye.

This brings us to the principle or primary question before the Court. Should the (plaintiff) defamed party be held accountable [not innocent] and the accusatory party [innocent] or should the defamed party(plaintiff) be found [innocent] and the accusatory party be found [guilty], “as charged”.?

The answer is:

The Court finds the defendant, [not guilty].

“This is the correct answer”.
You may be thinking, “raison d^etre”, in respect to the plaintiff.
You're thinking that the defamed party has been defamed, the defence is wrong(or incorrect).

However, the Court “must note(their existence)” the other party, which is the defence, and since I can only note one of the two parties, the defence is noted [not guilty] for defaming the plaintiff, neither philosophically, nor literally.
The plaintiff in this was thus found [not innocent], “though not immediately (onus)guilty(liable)”.

Troubling conclusion perhaps, although not precipiteously so.

“Let's debate one more question before, bedtime”,
and let the supplicants not be found “in contempt of Court”.

You may note that if you are attempting to find the Court [guilty], it is “Against the Law”. I'll let everyone figure that one out for themselves(smiles).

“Let him who is without Sin cast the First Stone.”

Who can in all reality and in all fairness claim the right of this the [King]'s {choice} (of Israel), and who is overlyinvolved with it now,!?

I say, “who is claiming politics now,”.!?

So then, which question of Law and Right should we debate now.?

We could go back to the Murder 2(two) accusation and charge, but “it's grizzly” or gory.

We could debate [bedbugs]. I could raise the question to the Court whether bedbugs are required co-habitater's for 3 years in this Law & society.?
I could call a lawyer to “hold a bouquet of flowers” in the defence position, while I raise a question from the plaintiff position.

Let us have a [debate], one of law,
where we would be concerned with the outcome, rather than one that is Theoretical or hypothetical(with proposed answer, without answer) only.

Let's continue with the debate as to whether this court petitioner's 3-5 year ordeal with bedbugs was required by the Law.

How may this Court session proceed,?

I'm going to have a lawyer in the defence position, which has to be filled, technically, if we're going to have a debate.

Now, what would 'margerine-on-a-brown-bun be.?

The [question] requiring an affirmation or negation from “the Court” is this:
[Are bedbugs required co-habitant's, with the plaintiff, this the defamed party, for 3 years, under this Law & society and “political climate”], right.?

The Accusatory party, our defence, here is this that the plaintiff has defamed himself. He has apparently been led to believe that (their) well being is the Court's responsibility. The position of the defence is that the plaintiff is on his or her own for any damages. You know we all have our troubles in life.

The defence rests (opening statement).

The plaintiff would now like to petition the Court.
I, “the defamed party”, have suffered under the duress and indignity of these disgusting little insects for years now. I have tried bugtraps, pesticides, sealant, but these creatures keep coming in from God only knows (where). Therefore, I feel indignified enough by these creatures suffice it to petition the Court for a remedy to this question of concerning law & society.

The plaintiff is in {good faith}.
The plaintiff rests (their (2nd) opening statement).

You see, this is almost an easy one.
You can see the “ butter on a white bun” as (the defamed party) has a point and you can see that the “'margerine-on-a-brown-bun” also has a point. (yes, closeing words, but we're not getting that fancy here in these analogies, yes)

Let us consider the Court's response, in the shoes of “the Government” with the power to Judge people and things, both great and small, both high or low, by this our “'butter-on-a-brown-bun”.
Both (white move) and (black move) are hopeing for it to come out in their favour.

“The Court” is considering:

The basic decision the Court has to make is whether or not the plaintiff's claim is to be upheld. Is the plaintiff [innocent] and the defence [guilty] or is the plaintiff [not (entirely) innocent] and thereby the defence [not guilty].?

Let's consider this matter for a moment:

The Court would like to raise another point or two before issuing a final verdict.

“The World” is not a “dog eat dog jungle”.
It is not a free for all uncivilized affair of sticks and stones.
There is civilization, there is class, there is reason and there is law and Right.

At this time, in human history, we have passed the point of neanderthal's hunting & gathering, where the petitioner would “be on his own”, left to his\her own effects or devices.

Our [group] efforts now are the more satisfactory.

Hereby withforth, the Court finds the plaintiff [innocent] of any wrong doing and also releases him from any deleterious consequences or effects that these disgusting little creatures have inflicted or are inflicting.

This finding is individual. The Court reserves the right to ascertain and determine each remarkably similar case on it's own merits.

Now what is my this (“the plaintiff's position”) here,?!

In fact, the case is this: it is not a plaintiff(or a defendant), this is “(the) Court”.!

Thus, we can see that a third party, “a court”, is required otherwise there can be no legal Judgement. The only sticking point here is that “the Court” for intensive purposes is a gold throne in Israel, “as opposed to an iron throne in Germany”, say, for our purposes here.

Let's go back over a couple more points before we close this involvement over “Legal Political [Authority]”.

What is [“the Law”], and what is a “[Crime]”.

We find that these terms occur in direct relation to “the Government”, which requires a Court otherwise there is “no Law” and there is “no crime”.

Who bears the right to find (you), guilty or innocent,! of anything in society.? This is critical.!

As well, a petition to the Court does not have to concern uncivilized matters, it could pertain to civilized matters, (we presume).

These are yet a further Power(s) of the Court:

1. The Court must find one party in the defence seat that is the accusatory party, at the time of trial, and must find the correct party in the plaintiff's seat, that is the defamed party.

2. The Court must determine whether the “propitiation” before the Court is a “civilized” or “uncivilized matter”. This remains our ascertainment. The watch word here, to remember, is [discrete] and (discretion).

3. Also, the Court must find the defamed party, [not innocent], or, [innocent], by Law&Right, and the accusatory party [not guilty], or, [guilty].
“Material damages with(no small)standing.”

These matters must be addressed correctly and adequately, before, the debate can proceed and for there to be an all satisfactory outcome.
“Let us pray”.









And how “the Government”, makes me laugh sometimes, like make-believe, apples, dwarves and mirrors.

Signed yours truly,





C.A. Master Lindgren,
(The Judge, Jury & Executioner),
initialled December 8th, 2012A.d. Common Era

“Life's not fair, but the Government is.”
(slogan, motto or creed): To the future.
Word's to live by, and perhaps it's the most a 'Man can hope for, we dare to think.