Discussion of legal fiction created to legitimize prior interpretation of policy and consent
This is a continuation of dialog on a statement made by Compass Morainn on January 26, 2012 about a forum war in progress on the internet (1) in which a confluence of elements including what can be termed one of a number of insider groups is participating in an eradication attempt on the knowledge cache which was housed within the original Open Minds Forum at the lucianarchy web address.
To understand what the fight is over, we first have to understand what a knowledge cache is and what the value of it is in a possible circumstance.
A knowledge cache is a compilation of different pieces of information that are related in a given paradigm. The pieces can originate from difference sources and even have different proposed purposes but it is the relationship that is of importance here. Essentially a knowledge cache is a reference library that has been worked over in preparation for utilage in some future circumstance.
Now an uninvolved observer might ask why would anyone care about a knowledge cache in the subject of ufology or exopolitics? This subject is not a concern of any substantial priority for the people of the planet is it? Well what circumstance could lie out there that would make it a priority? Why is it so-called insiders or intelligence community assets (IC) would be said to be going to the trouble to effect the destruction of something like it if it has no value? Perhaps value is subjective and relative to positional perspective? True, because if you are not involved in the contact paradigm in such a way that you do not require a Disclosure(2) to understand that Contact is in play within at least some levels of societal structures, then no it would not make an ounce of intelligent sense.
Quote from my notes: There are parties out there, namely in the British end of the IC who seem to desire a complete closure and eradication of the Knowledge Cache that is OMF. One of the battles(in the broader matrix) that has been occurring between factions of insiders is a fight over 'whose' version of the contact story will be in control or effect when unambiguous contact occurs and that the ptb do NOT control what the different groups of ETs do in relation to interaction with humanity on this planet. So part of this is the use of assets tied by history to one group of the IC who are displaying a pattern that indicates one strand of attack pattern involved in this.
The modus operandi of the insider groups is that when they think something is no longer of value to them, they then act to destroy it. They do this so that they are in the clear to move forward on whatever the next construct is. OMF is a conglomeration of material and pieces of the great puzzle and the history of contact and the study of that history. They cannot create a streamlined construct that would free them of any responsibility, accountability, or security integrity for the National Security State if or when unambiguous contact arrives the history of Contact is sitting in a public cache for reference by the entire planet! No, in order for them to control unambiguous contact in a selective or deceptive way they first must destroy the knowledge caches; eliminate the logical questions and supporting material(s) that would rise in the course of such an event, and totally discredit those who keep them in trust for the world or participate in them directly.
In attacking and succeeding in the permanent suspension of two forums in the course of the forum wars, they have set precedence now. If they get away with this, all other forums will be at risk to follow.
This arrives from a different perspective than many insider assessments, in which there is a pre-existing conflict between contact management groups within the globalism construct. That conflict is reaching out to manipulate the public tools of understanding, the intent being that when it is prepared to inititiate constructs of its own, or it wants a total absence of competition to their intended version of understanding (read social engineering), it then uses all accessible tools to destroy that competition.
This is not to say that all insider groups are involved in doing this, just that the umbrella management of one faction seems to be involved and that parallels can be also seen in the way of widespread preparations at the surface level of governance. Dialogs on these matters and their means, methods, and nature are in progress. (3)
In the notes above, I illustrate that there is a pre-existing unspecified interpretation of the policy which maintains the secrecy paradigm status quo and is now moving to make way for what is undoubtedly stylized constructs which would be at risk if public cache’s remained in hands not under their control. The stylized constructs are just like un-Constitutional laws, and illegal orders…they are kindred to legal fictions. That policy is moving forward to operate in the open by legislative consent which has already been given but not fully established in publicly accepted legal writing or legislation. Here is a video that is part of the discussion of legal fiction created to legitimize prior interpretation of policy and consent
While you watch the video consider the various aspects of the discussion and consider what the system evolution might arrive at if 'truth' or participation or communication about Contact, Knowledge, or investigative questions were to fall under the designation of the term "belligerency" or "belligerent". And then particularly if you are an inhabitant of the ufology or exopolitics community and have seen the converse 'high strangeness' on the part of the system's secret keepers, ask yourself what the chances are that it might already be the case? (see list below for companion notes to the video)
~ See Enclosed: a roughly 42 minute video.
There is a lot of information in the video and you will need to take some time to review it all. It does not make any mention of the issue of Contact. The given contexts are activities and concerns at the surface level. (There are parallels to similar applications seen in the public's world of studying the Contact Paradigm.) It addresses the general problems from the point of foundational principles spelled out within the Constitution which was meant to guide the nation’s conduct and also attempts to address questions of concern that have been put to respected individuals recently which you will see a few of in the video.
The context that the enclosed video as a whole builds for the observer, from the contact paradigm perspective, has serious intertwined relationships indicating how the fears of groups and attempts to control (including things like eradicate public knowledge cache's, and other dialogs not within the policy managers realms of control) is indeed happening, then there is the methodology, and the lengths to which the behavior is being taken in all venues. It clearly lays out a description of what level of conduct is politically legitimate in the current governance-construct under “prior interpretation” applied within “the terms of consent.”
Remember the National Security State operates all the octopus under terms of policy and interpretation not under laws.......until now...as Catherine Austin Fitts circa 1998 in a 2002 interview pointed out, they are attempting to prepare for the paradigm and bring certain aspects of it up to surface level. At that time it was the financial end of the matter. Today it is systemic population and information controls.
Now the nature of what emerges in any given facet and who controls what, may well vary because there is a Conflict Paradigm in play. There are diametrically opposed factions seemingly involved whose contributions and conduct define their differences from their peers. If any man or any group has a nature, then that nature will be individually expressed in its acts. The whole part of Free Will in this is: control and influence is in truth a shell game. For any aspect in any facet there is a choice which is entirely personal to the one who makes it. (4)
Important key concepts to catch or have at hand when you watch the video:
- Question: Is a disposition under the laws of war that a person (read as a set of possible perceptions, values, or truths) may include the following:
- detention (withholding or removal of information or person from public view)
- trial by military court or tribunal (which are often closed to the public and which are often held during times of conflict in interest of power rather than principle)
- transfer of location for trial by alternative court or tribunal (extraordinary rendition)
- transfer of X (any person or object) to control of some other entity such as a foreign entity or country
- Is Designation as “Belligerent” or “Belligerency” under war time conditions a cause for actions described under A. Question: Is a disposition under the laws of war….
- Full Spectrum of power under (state of) war.
- Full Spectrum of Claimed Powers…in writing formally acknowledges “prior interpretation” of authorization of full spectrum of power claimed.
- Designation of “Belligerent” or “Belligerency” involves no due process in play available (what unbiased resource for mediation of disputed designation is available to a forum owner faced with ‘suspension’ by his own hosting company which is reacting to what can be termed malicious manipulation toward a destructive or censorship end?)
- Slight of Hand: we’re not changing anything; employment of legal fiction.
- Designated or Designation, is not the same thing as an Accusation in legal terms.
- Is “TRUTH” currently designated as “Belligerent” or “Belligerency” status?
- That once in the altered or constructed “System” no reasonable recourse to self-defense is available.
- Can be applied to ANY PERSON (this includes ANY OBJECT incongruent with the umbrella power or culture.)
- That the designation of “Belligerent” or “Belligerency” is a designed term to be impossible to escape or avoid for the duration of a said “war”.
- Knowledge or an Act of Understanding a Truth or a set of possible truths or questions can be substituted for “Person” since current laws and their applications have established that an entity or object like a corporation can have the same rights or applications as a “Person”.
- Broadening the practice of applying the definitions and determinations is an already established behavior.
- Minimal Sum Evidence Standard.
- On practical opposition model
- Rendering the X (insert any object or person or group or course) independent of and superior to the civil powers
- Destruction of the Knowledge Cache’s is not the only thing at risk (5)
- Poisoning the “Self” – why you wind up with these sorts of choices. (6)
- What ensures a peaceful evolution and resolution to conflict(s)
- The buying of more time versus tightening the time frame.
1 Memo to Members: Warning Statement on Forum Wars http://compassmorainn.blogspot.com/2012/01/warning-statement-about-forum-wars.html
2 Definition of Disclosure vs Communication in the Contact Paradigm: Communication does not entail inclusion or usage of verifiable and promotable proof, while Disclosure does come with proof that may be widely distributed and disseminated.
3 Cyrellys Geibhendach; from Collection of Notes from Email 2011 & 2012
4 Moral High Ground, defined; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground
5 Rendition Hubs Discovered: Part A http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NnQNYiUJfM0
6 True or Higher Self, definition from soulprogress.com: http://www.soulprogress.com/html/Glossary/TrueSelf.html
7 An example of dementia; Bread crumbs… http://compassmorainn.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=memberblogs&thread=83&post=723