Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#31
As further due diligence, I decided to start watching the :War-Castles 1-13 videos. The information I obtained from Robert Leroy Horton as transcribed at russell-jay-gould.blogspot.com is confirmed in :War-Castles-~2 from 2:20 to 9:00. In this segment, Russell-Jay:Gould, the man himself, describes how he mailed himself to the Vatican to be appointed sovereign Postmaster General and Commander in Chief of all militaries on Planet Earth. Then he describes the challenges he encountered when he went to the US Treasury to assert his authority.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#32
The concept that one can evade these codes by writing a demand letter to local officials, and then construing their non-response as binding, is an example of the pseudolegal error of equating silence to consent. See "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony" by Donald Netolitzky, Alberta Law Review (2018)55:4 (found via Wikipedia).
Greetings Jerry,
This is an important point to correct in a public forum because readers who may not have sufficient legal awareness may be confused by claims that appear to be "of the law". You apparently believed that the third party information at that internet link "proved" the position (opinion) that I and all people remotely similar can safely be demonized, demeaned and disregarded as fools out of touch with reality and using only pseudo-legal commercial arguments as magic and ceremony. Later in the article or one of the footnotes it was referred to as mumbo-jumbo. I assume you carefully read the entire 44 pages of the article. Because why else would you post it here for others to read? But did you notice that the article was written about Canadian courts (Queen's Bench) and did you read the copious footnotes (288 of them) supporting the author's opinion? If you did read them did you note that there were only four categories of footnotes? There were 1) references to books and other articles (opinions, and many of them written by this same author), 2) legal dictionary definitions of a few well chosen terms the author believed supported his opinion, 3) quotes from people the author characterizes as "anti-government" gurus, and 4) about 15 court cases from England, Canada, Australia, and only two or three from the US. This is a common tactic used to scare people who don't know the actual law, away from acceptance of a concept or further research into the relevant and actual law. In our country neither Legal reviews nor Court cases establish or create public law in any public jurisdiction. They render "opinions" only and those opinions are binding only on the parties involved in the case. Any judge in a future similar case or even the same case can reverse the previous court "opinion". Internet articles supported by court cases are also only expressing opinions, not law. I've been told several times by local agencies that they are bound only by relevant law, not court cases unless they are a party to a specific case. I have a letter from the US Secretary of State specifically stating that they do not accept court cases as legal backing for any legal claim relevant to one of their applications or processes.

A researcher can go to any public law library and find encyclopedic volumes of books lining the shelves that list the history of court cases, showing the relative few that have never been reversed along with the majority of cases that have been reversed and the names of all the cases reversing the original case. Some of those reversal listings of a single case go on for many pages. In our country, public law is not formed by court review or University legal reviews. It is formed by Congressional Act only. The court's only power to change that is if the Supreme Court can prove that the Congressional Act is unconstitutional. Even then, the court cannot change the Congressional Act but Congress itself must do so. Any law not established by Congressional Act is private to a specific jurisdiction (even Presidential orders). One becomes subject to those specific jurisdictions voluntarily, although also generally unknowingly.

According to at least three Congress enacted laws, the government agencies ARE required to respond to a request for authority, proof of law, or agency records. Title 5 (USC) is about Administrative procedure and outlines specific avenues of requesting this information and the obligation of the agencies in response. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) soecifically in subsection 552 gives a specific format for requesting legal authority, and any agency records that are not classified as restricted for the national safety. Any agency receiving a FOIA request must respond. If they fail to do so their silence is estoppel in any relevant court case and the employee(s) may be reprimanded or fired or even serve time in prison in some cases.

Congress enacted The Uniform Commercial Code as superseding law. In the revised statutes of all 50 US STATES one can find one Chapter or Title stating that the UCC code is law "in this state" and supersedes all other state statutes. Any govt agency is subject to UCC because it 'sells' goods and services for a 'fee' and also because they engage in securities transfers (titles, liens, citations, orders tied to fines and obligations, summonses, and more). In Anastasia's billionaire story, John Heitzman's father instructed him saying, "America as a country is simply a convenient shield in the capital game. And it is dependent on capital more than any other nation" (8.1, pg 83, black cover). Capital and it's action and process is governed by the UCC.

The UCC defines "notice" (1-202), reasonable time (1-205), parties' power to choose applicable law, (1-301), reservation of rights (1-308), course of performance (1-303), Effect of acceptance: Notice of Breach... (2-607 notice of right to defend action (3-119). The UCC governs all court actions and so has superior standing in any court over "opinions" from any source, including Canadian law professors.

The author of your link presented no law citation to support his opinion. What he did do was program susceptible people to fear certain ideas and public association or agreement with ideas characterized (slandered) as "pseudo-legal, myth, belief in magic, and absurd reasoning". You will find these "programs" all over the internet. They make the programmed readers believe they are safe and empowered to likewise demean, slander and ridicule the same ideas in the same ways. Anastasia and her Grandfather made many comments relative to this,
Grandfather speaking: "bio-robotic Man is a Man who consents -- not entirely of his own free will, of course, but under the influence special occult programming - to believe in an unreal world. And given that this unreal world has been constructed by someone for a specific purpose, this someone claims that he knows the laws of the unreal world and demands that Man subject himself to them." (7, pg 116, black cover).
Anastasia speaking: "In many respects (people's) opinions aren't their own. A great influence is exercised upon them by somebody else's will, acting through public opinion" (8.1, pg 221, black cover).
Anastasia speaking: "Reality should be determined only through one's own self. (8.1, pg 13 & 55, black cover)
Grandfather speaking: "Through the efforts of the slanderers, the higher echelons of power are attempting to thwart the dawn of a new era here in Russia. In the near future they will try to present the idea in a distorted form in some other country. And they will try to discredit the idea. (7, pg 104, black cover)
Grandfather speaking: "...in reality practically all communications are calculated to drain Man away from information." (7-pg 56, black cover)
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#33
As further due diligence, I decided to start watching the :War-Castles 1-13 videos. The information I obtained from Robert Leroy Horton as transcribed at russell-jay-gould.blogspot.com is confirmed in :War-Castles-~2 from 2:20 to 9:00. In this segment, Russell-Jay:Gould, the man himself, describes how he mailed himself to the Vatican to be appointed sovereign Postmaster General and Commander in Chief of all militaries on Planet Earth. Then he describes the challenges he encountered when he went to the US Treasury to assert his authority.
That is true in part but much of what is on that blog spot site is not true. You may not realize or care that no one else has been successful in "mailing themselves" (although many have tried before and since and gone to jail) but this man has acquired a level of legal recognized authority that compels one to either ridicule because it's too big to comprehend, or look into the actual mechanics and principles of how this was achieved as well as make the effort to verify or disprove his claims. After all, if his claims are true and can be verified, they are important at a magnitude that can hardly be overstated. Only in verifying his claims can one make a valid determination if they are fantasy or not. That can not be determined by opinion alone regardless of who expresses that opinion. In my reasoning, only a fool would allow an unverified opinion to block his mind from full examination of Russel-Jay: Gould's history and work.

I have not only verified many of this man's outrageous claims, I have personally spoken with many people who have experienced direct confrontation with multiple government agencies and judges resulting in an immediate and astounding recognition and backing down of government agencies and judges. I have seen and read the amazing letter sent by the US Navy commanders to Russel-Jay: Gould. I have also seen legal disasters from people using his principles incorrectly. I'm sure some of these will show up online in "legal review" articles to program people to dismiss this man as delusional and divert attention and acceptance of the ever-growing number of huge almost unbelievable successes in regaining freedom to self-govern.

I can see exactly why articles are written like the ones you have linked here. Just the several claims of events that I have verified, are enough to seriously threaten the government's authority, or rather it's lack of authority. Yes, Russel's claims seem absurd but the real absurdity is that they were achieved successfully in exactly the same way governments achieved their authority, except for one thing. Governments hid the reality and Russel-Jay: Gould has brought it to the open. It's almost too outrageous to comprehend.

I don't deny that the claims sound absurd but I also can't ignore the facts and the numbers of them. I'm not talking about "flying under the radar" or getting by with something because the government agencies are too busy to "pay attention to everyone", but rather direct interactions with agents, agencies and courts that immediately results in recognition of the new jurisdiction and correction with the government backing down. In my reasoning, that, and the growing numbers of it, commands attention, research and dispells fear of the slander programmers. But each man must follow his own reasoning to wherever it takes him.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#34
Hello :Joyce-M:,

Thank you for clarifying the basis of your method for challenging the authority of local government building and zoning codes. Over the last several days, I've found myself entertaining the hopeful possibility that perhaps you are correct. Indeed, it would be a most delightful event in my life, to find that I need not be subject to those codes.

However, unfortunately I find that your argument is still not convincing. Title 5 of USC and subsection 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) specifically refer to Federal agencies. Your contention that local building code and land use enforcement agencies are subject to UCC because they charge fees and issue citations and fines seems spurious to me. Building codes are modeled on the International Building Code and other model specialty codes, not the UCC. FWIW, Wikipedia editors think that land use law is based on local police power, as established by the case of Commonwealth v. Alger in 1851. I don't know of any model codes for land use law, although I understand that Oregon's "Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973" has been very influential, along with the UN's Agenda 21.

While you are correct that the laws of the United States are set forth in statutes enacted by congress and other legislatures, nevertheless the courts must determine the application of those laws.

Which brings me back to the challenge I issued earlier. Where is there even a single court case where one of these "sovereign citizen" or "Quantum self governance" legal theories has been upheld at an appellate level? I would be especially interested in any case regarding the jurisdiction of local governments over land use and building codes.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#35
Greetings Jerry,
I will answer your questions here, but only minimally. The danger in providing this kind of information in a public forum is that it sometimes falls into people's programming and gets distorted by it. That especially happens when one can't or won't do their own research and verification, for whatever reasons. Then they may think they can apply what they read without any further knowledge of the law. It is critical that one overcomes that and instead use any information such as I've shared in these discussions, as a springboard into their own verification and further research. Without that, one is susceptible to intimidation and manipulation by those who want control over people for the controllers' own benefit. Any reader will do themselves a great disservice if they use me or any other third party as a source of legal fact. Verify everything and make the law your own knowledge in service of your own reasoning power.

With that disclaimer, I'll begin my answer to your questions.
I find that your argument is still not convincing. Title 5 of USC and subsection 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) specifically refer to Federal agencies.
It may be hard to swallow, but all STATE OF..., CITY OF..., COUNTY OF ..., are Federal. At the level of heads of departments they know this. Judges all know this. I won't go into that with full legal citations here but if you're interested you can find the full legal proof of this in references to actual US Titles, regulations and Statutes at this link https://purgingamericaofthematrix.wordpress.com/. Download the PDF and read the section titled, "The Fable of Federal Jurisdiction", particularly pages 14-25. I am not recommending that you use the author's process, at least not without a LOT more study.
Your contention that local building code and land use enforcement agencies are subject to UCC because they charge fees and issue citations and fines seems spurious to me.
I don't need to prove this. It's the law in all States and anyone can read it for themselves or hold the opinion that they don't need to. Your STATE REVISED STATUTES are available to download on your state website. All you need to do in order to verify this is look through your state revised statutes to find the UCC section. In Colorado it's Title 4. Just a quick scan of the general definitions will reveal numerous references to court actions and terms. The agencies and courts must function within the same law as the general public. If you believe the govt agencies have a different set of statutes in conflict with the state revised statutes, show me that law and it's legislative authorization.
Building codes are modeled on the International Building Code and other model specialty codes, not the UCC.
What the building codes are modeled on is irrelevant to the UCC jurisdiction. Building codes are for controlling commercial builders, and only they are legally subject to that jurisdiction, by the department's own code that governs their purpose and activity. UCC is for governing all commercial transactions. Nearly all government transactions are commercial in nature. I have been in a courtroom where I heard this acknowledged by a judge. I have read the codes of several agencies and seen the explicit limits restricting their jurisdiction to commercial activities and licenses. I have read a letter from Colorado Dept of Revenue acknowledging that non-commercial property is not subject to taxation. The problem with standing on such a claim is that most people actually do hold their "real estate" as a commercial investment, intending to make a profit at a later sale. Regardless of any underlying jurisdiction (building department, revenue department, court action, police action, etc.), if a transaction is commercial in nature it is governed by UCC. That is superseding law and is written in every STATE REVISED STATUTES. Go find it to prove your opinion or don't, as you wish.
Where is there even a single court case where one of these "sovereign citizen" or "Quantum self governance" legal theories has been upheld at an appellate level?
This request is based on flawed reasoning (programming). You assume incorrectly that court opinion is the "proof" of correctness or incorrectness, and you also probably assume that in the absence of court 'approval' 'correctness' cannot exist. I'm not sure there's much point in addressing this. You've made it very clear that you do not accept that there are multiple jurisdictions that exist and function outside and even above the jurisdiction of the Federal, State, municipal and county courts (actually since 1972 they're all Federal). However, if you could accept that reality of intentionally hidden jurisdictions, you would be able to reason that it would be foolish for a Man who has established his life and function outside a court's jurisdiction, to go into that court for an opinion that is not relevant to the Man's jurisdiction. Or that if a case comes into a court that is shown to belong in another jurisdiction or threatens to expose the court's hidden side, the court will immediately either dismiss the case or seal the court record. Evidence of this from another source is found in the second to last sentence of the letter at this link https://archive.org/stream/PurgingAmeri ... 5_djvu.txt

You mentioned a court case, "Commonwealth v. Alger in 1851". Are you aware that no court in any of the 50 States today will allow a court case from prior to 1939 into court arguments or evidence, even if it's never been reversed? Someday you might want to look into that for greater clarity about the US government and their jurisdiction.
...nevertheless the courts must determine the application of those laws.
That is not technically correct in any jurisdiction that I know of. The law, if it is actually law (rather than "color of law"), is not subject to court determination of its application. Courts are their own jurisdiction with their own agenda. I've heard a judge say to me, "My court, my law". She was right in saying that because she knew the nature of her jurisdiction when the parties in a case don't know how to invoke their jurisdictional law-form. But if they do, it's no longer her court and her law. She becomes bound by the higher law of the party's jurisdiction, at which time she will take the needed action to protect the illusion -- that usually takes the form of a dismissal of the case, or sometimes a sealed case.

Final point referring back to my first paragraph. Before any reader decides to stand in a jurisdiction other than the US territorial jurisdiction, it is of utmost importance that you have studied the law first hand, verified everything you think you know or learned from a third party (me or any other) and find and clean up your programmed thinking relative to government and law. You can stand on the law only when you know it, and when you can accurately distinguish between law, opinion and threat.

These conversations with you, Jerry, have provided an excellent indication to readers of how deep the programming can go. And we've barely scratched the surface of this public programming that is woven throughout our beliefs to block one from venturing outside of the "programs". It may be a contentious discussion at times but it has been extremely important for any who read it. I'm grateful for its service to the dream of restoring all the Earth to paradise gardens
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#36
Hello :Joyce-M:,

I was going to write a point-by-point reply to your statements above. And I still want to begin by admitting where you have made an excellent point, to wit: I must agree that to the extent that government agencies participate in commercial activities, they are subject to the UCC. This is buried in the UCC definitions section, where government agencies are included in the definition of a legal "person".

However, the UCC also describes some situations where entities are specifically treated differently from individuals, such as for example the requirements for appropriately giving notice. And to use Idaho statutes as an example: the UCC is chapters 1 thru 10 of title 28, while the entire code consists of 74 titles, many of which relate to activities of public agencies which are not specifically addressed in the UCC. So it is certainly an oversimplification to believe that the other 73 titles can safely be neglected, although I'm not sure that's what you're saying.

As to the rest, could it be that you are writing "legal scripture"? What I mean to say is this. We are all familiar with such scriptures as the Christian New Testament, the Hebrew Tanakh and Torah, the Islamic Quran, and so forth. My own reaction to these holy books is that they are obviously fictional. The Red Sea did not really part to allow the Hebrews to escape from captivity, at least not as it is depicted in Charlton Heston movies, with the water standing like two walls defining a passageway. If a man dies on a crucifix and is buried in a cave, he does not come back to life. Water does not change into wine, and you cannot feed a multitude with three fishes. And I am not trying to deny the spiritual value of scripture, but I am saying that I can't bring myself to take it literally.

Yet I know that there are many true believers, who insist that all these things and more happened in the flesh, exactly as the scripture says.

I claim that the "Ringing Cedars" are also scripture. For me this is obvious from the introductory paragraph of Book 1 (Larisa Malgosheva-Bartone edition) which states:
This series of nine books tells the story of a remarkable woman named Anastasia, discovered in 1995 by a Siberian trader, Vladimir Megré, while he was plying the waters of the remote Ob River. Anastasia was born in the forest in 1969 to parents who died tragically when she was just a baby. Living for the most part without warm clothes, food cultivation or man-made shelter, she has survived on fruit, nuts, berries and mushrooms, brought to her by "wild" animals with which she lives in peaceful harmony.
After watching the film of Agafia Lykova, how can anyone seriously believe that a young woman could survive in such a climate without clothes or shelter, and be sustained by wild animals? They would simply eat her alive. Beyond the absurdity of the basic premise, many more fantastic elements quickly emerge as the story unfolds. Anastasia "exists for those, for whom she exists" and for the rest of us, she exists as a parable, or a symbol, or an inspiration; but certainly not as a physical human being. Call me a "doubting Thomas" if you will, but I say that Vladimir Megre made this up.

1 Corinthians 5:5-8 tells us that the resurrected Jesus appeared first to Peter and the twelve, and then to five hundred brothers at one time, then to James and all the apostles, and finally to Paul himself. If you take Paul's statement at face value, the evidence is massive. How can you argue with five hundred eyewitnesses? For that matter, how dare you disagree with Paul himself, when he says he saw with his own eyes? But... I don't actually know any of those people! It all happened so long ago, and far away.

In much the same way, we are told that Russell-Jay :Gould has mailed himself around the world with postage stamps, thus cementing his credentials to become Commander and Chief of all the world's armies. "Former" spies and military propagandists like Robert-Leroy :Horton and Robert David Steele assure us that we can take Gould's word salad at face value. And in a similar vein, Thomas Clark Nelson tells us that he is a legal superhero who can have any Federal case dismissed summarily for lack of jurisdiction, simply by filing extinguishment of contract by rescission.

And even you, :Joyce-M:, are saying in this very forum, that you have seen such legal miracles happen yourself. Cases closed and sealed, judges cowering in fear of "red pilled" defendants. But where is the proof, I ask? Where is one single such case that I can read the court's decision, or even know the names of the beneficiaries of these wonderful events?

I say there is no evidence that such events have actually taken place, because this is all "legal scripture" you are writing and speaking about. That includes David-Wynn :Miller, Russell-Jay :Gould and Thomas Clark Nelson, as well as you, :Joyce-M:.

What you say may be inspirational, or hopeful, or aimed at creating a better world than where we're living now. But it's also legal fiction, not legal fact.

And in conclusion, I would say to the readers other than ourselves who are following this thread -- that I wholeheartedly agree with :Joyce-M:'s admonition. Do your own research, look at primary sources, evaluate the third-party sources for their accuracy and credibility, and reach your own conclusions. Verify everything for yourself, especially before you go striding into the courtroom.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#37
Just got around to reading this thread... tears in my eyes for how beautifully you've described community, Joyce, I'd like to see this post framed and posted everywhere!! There are no like buttons on this forum, so I just had to comment and say LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. Anyone thinking of community needs to read and reflect on these words a LOT, and share them with every potential member, and be sure that all are in true and honest agreement that this is their intention.

"So then is community important at all? Of course it is, but not as a medication for feeling powerless or empty. The importance of close relationship is in its stimulus to deeper thought and greater self awareness. Its a collective function of man and as such community acts as a repository of true wisdom, knowledge, history, potential, and love. Community (relationships) can never be a source of any of those. Rather, it is the enlargement of that which is in ourselves. Without it we would not be able to see ourselves clearly. In modern thinking, we are taught to see ourselves through the eyes of others but in the Divine program others make our own thought visible to us and thereby give us the opportunity to scrutinize, test and perfect our own thought, our own UN-paralleled power in all of space."

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#38
Greetings Jerry,

For people building a homestead, and particularly off grid, August and September are extremely demanding months. That's when it becomes clear what must be completed before cold and snow arrive and how little time is left to accomplish that. We've gotten much of the urgent work done but there's plenty to finish after that first freeze coming early next week. I'll have to keep this short.
Jerry wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:04 am
So it is certainly an oversimplification to believe that the other 73 titles can safely be neglected, although I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
I am not oversimplifying. You would be hard-pressed to find any government activity that is not commercial in nature by their own legal definitions of "commercial" and by multiple court opinions. But, few people are aware of that or how to use that knowledge, and based on the recent posts in this discussion, I doubt you will research deep enough to gain that knowledge.
Jerry wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:04 am
As to the rest, could it be that you are writing "legal scripture"?"
That depends on how you define your terms. If legal scripture is what is found in the law and in my direct experience of applying that law then it could be said that I'm fluent in that legal scripture. However, I'm certainly not writing that law.
Jerry wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:04 am
You wrote, "I say there is no evidence that such events have actually taken place, because this is all "legal scripture" you are writing and speaking about."
So you jumped from asking me to telling me that I'm writing and speaking "legal scripture". Regarding the majority of your recent post (and parts of other posts), Jerry, when you make your points by vilifying me or others that you wish to disagree with in order to give your points some form of "authority", you cease to be a contributor to harmony and benefit. All you need in order to give your points legal "authority" is to quote the Congressionally enacted law relevant to the jurisdiction you support, that you use for your legal source. Opinion, yours or any others, is only a belief not substantiated by knowledge or proof (American Collegiate Dictionary).

I don't wish to engage in a futile battle of opinions or a discussion in which my discussion partner degrades easily and frequently to the level of "smear labels", repeatedly demanding a type of proof that is irrelevant, and use of other demeaning tactics to give the illusion of authority to opinions. I have addressed your demand for irrelevant court cases and it is ignored. At this point I would be a fool to assume you are interested in any serious study or knowledge acquisition that might threaten your preferred opinions. I don't ask you to believe me or opinions. I only ask that you take the time to actually validate the claims you wish to slander on this forum (which will take a significant amount of study in some cases based on your apparent starting point). Without that, it's merely opinion based on beliefs without knowledge or proof, and you don't appear willing to go beyond that.

This discussion has moved entirely out of the topic of kins domains and their communities which is what this forum is about. If you have something to discuss or contribute to the greater success of kins domain building or plans for community then perhaps you would like to post that in the appropriate topic section.

I wish you the best in achieving your commercial goals for the land once called Vedrica.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#39
Hello :Joyce-M:,

Since you opened this discussion with an affirmation of its importance to the topic of kins domains and their communities, I am surprised that you are now dismissing it. Should kins domain developments be organized on a commercial basis, or should they be organized based on quantum governance, or admiralty law, or some other basis? What is the relevant jurisdictional law? Are these not important topics for kins domains?

Since it is customary in the United States to organize real estate developments on a commercial basis, I would think that the burden of proof should rest on you to prove that better alternatives are available. You ask me to put in a significant effort to validate the claims you are making. But I have exercised what I consider a reasonable level of due diligence, and I have not been able to find any lines of evidence worth pursuing. If you want to persuade me or others that I am mistaken, it is your job to present the evidence for your claims in an organized and accessible manner.

According to Farlex's free online dictionary, "slander" means "oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit."

The last thing I need is more legal problems. But as you can see, what I have said is in writing and not oral, and so the appropriate legal term would be "libel". What you have specifically accused me of, is slander against ideas rather than persons.

Do you believe I have committed libel against any person, that would cause financial or actionable harm? If so, I hereby apologize most sincerely, and I am open to your suggestions for how to mitigate any damages. I would also authorize the site administrator and publisher, Gabriel Miguel, to edit or delete any messages from me that are considered defamatory in any way.

Regards,

-Jerry

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#40
Greetings Jerry,

I accept no burden of proof for you. That is 100% your duty and responsibility if anything I share interests you. You have innate right to your opinions and your manner of relating. They will serve their perfect purpose for you.

I have no desire to change you, merely to allow who you choose to be to serve it's Divine purpose in this community and elsewhere.

This thread is extremely important but not necessarily for the purposes you mentioned. I've said repeatedly, I have no desire to make this an educational platform for legal instruction, nor will I.

I hold my right to meet life on my terms and explore those results with joy and Universal support. I have experienced the results I desired. Your opinions and comments change nothing in that.

Best wishes for your dreams.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
cron