Herewith are three more comments from Peter on the subject of law vs legal. These are copied as is with a little tidying up of the layout but no grammatical modification.

I am not You

Peter Thompson

20 February 2023

It is that lousy penny again, Adrian thanks for asking an easy question to answer, and it is so refreshing to not have to overwork the grey matter, which is such an easy question to answer.

Answer: “Who does it Identify?”

There we go, and does it identify the “man/woman or a person?”

I will go ahead and explain it another way.

Adrian, we are at one of your meetings, where you have once a quarter to discuss your YouTube channel and the podcasts you do, and we speak in general with a few guest speakers over a long weekend.

When this lousy penny is sitting down, and you all come into the room you regularly hire once a quarter, and say sorry are you using and say please remain sitting and enjoy your refreshment, if you like to listen to you are welcome to join in if you so wish, and I reply thank you.

You spend 15 minutes preparing and ready to start with your first guest speaker; you begin to introduce them when this bad penny stands up and says, Adrian, “How many children have you got?” You are busy and distracted by what appears to be a strange question, so answer “Two,” I have two children, and I sit back down.

A few people are muttering, with one saying what a stupid question to ask; why did he not ask that question beforehand or during the coffee break?

The first two guest speakers have spoken, and then an interval coffee break for refreshments takes place: you then say, “Sorry everyone, Joan has been delayed as her connecting train has been cancelled, she assures me she will be too late to speak today, but she will arrive at the hotel later, and we will have her with us tomorrow. Everyone was disappointed as she was the highlight of all the guest speakers, with her insight on an entire range of subjects.

 So I will need to rearrange the programme because some of the speakers are not going to arrive until tomorrow, we might need to finish a bit early today, we will have to see how it goes, you introduce your next speaker, and in mid-afternoon, you have questions and answers; so then you say unless there is anyone who wishes to speak will finish for the day.

This bad penny stands up and says, “I would like to say a few words, if I may?” You reply, “It would be better if we change places as you with be heard better as we have the microphone down here, and you will be heard more clearly” we exchange places, and they are all muttering as I was not inviting in the first place.

I am about to speak, and you stand up and say, “How many children do you have?” everyone laughs because they remember that was the very question I had asked you at the beginning of the day, and I reply, “none.”

I am about to start speaking when the door that was slightly ajar opens; a small boy of three and a girl of two come in and shout daddy, daddy, I pick them up in my arms and say, “Hello, son, give him a big kiss and cuddle, and turn to my daughter and kiss and cuddle her as well, my wife comes rushing in all embarrassed, saying sorry, sorry and take them out, I give her the key to our room, and say I will see you in a few minutes.

My wife, with our son and daughter, had been to see her parents and I was meeting them there to have a couple days in the country as I could not make it, to go with them as I had an important business meeting to go to.

I am about to start speaking when  a woman says, “I thought you said you had no children?” I reply, “Correct, I have none.” Then a man says, “You’re a liar,” and before I have a chance to answer, another man says, ” Why do we want to listen to this liar and what he has to say when he is nothing more than a liar?”

I say, “I spoke the truth, and you are condemning me without first hearing me out.” The people are very annoyed, and some get up and leave in disgust, and you stand up to keep the peace and say, ” Come on everyone, you know our “Golden rule” we hear people out and listen to what people have to say.”

The room falls into silence, wanting to hear my explanation of why I said I did not have any children when it was plain for them to see that I had.

I say, “What is your definition of the meaning of these words, You, person, children?” 

I say it is a rhetorical question, as I will tell everyone my definition of the meaning of those three words.

You  (Pron.) Old English eow, dative and accusative plural of pu (see thou), objective case of ge, “Ye” (see ye) from Proto-Germanic *juz-, *iwwiz (source also of Old Norse yor, Old Saxon iu, Old Frisian iuwe, Middle Dutch, Dutch u, Old High German iu, German euch), PIE *yu, “Second Person (plural) pronoun.

Person (n.) Directly from the Latin persona, “human being, person, personage, a part in a drama, assumed character,” originally ” A false face, a mask,” such as those of wood or clay, covering the whole head, worn by actors in later Roman theatre. 

Child (n.) Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly “Born Person,” Proto-Germanic *Kilham (source also of Gothic kilpei “Womb,” Inkilpo “Pregnant,” Danish kuld “Children of the same marriage,” Old Swedish kulder “Litter,” Old English cildhama “Womb,” lit. “Child-home”); no certain cognates outside Germanic.

The broader sense of “Young person, small person.”

The difficulty with the plural began in Old Engish, where the nominative plural was at first child, identical with the singular, then c.975, a plural form cildru (genitive cildra) arose, probably for late 12c. as children, which is thus a double plural. Middle English plural cildre survives in Lancashire dialect childer and in Childermas.

So, my definitions of the meanings of those three words are the person (You), the person (Person), and the person (child, small person).

Firstly I am not a “You” as you, defined in its definition of the meaning of the word “Second Person (plural).”

My offspring is not a “Child, Children” as they are “Small Person(s), Young Person(s).” 

My offspring are “Filials,” who are clearly not young or small person(s).

Filial (adj.) late 14c., from Late Latin filialis “Of a son or daughter.” from filius “Son,” filia “Daughter” possibly from suffixed form PIE root *bheue- “to be, exist, grow (see be), but Watkins finds it “More likely” assimilated from *felios, originally “a suckling,” a suffixed form of PIE root *dhe(i)- “To suck, suckle.”

Filials can be breastfed, and how do we feed a name on a piece of paper in black ink on a white paper called a “Person” and certainly not be breastfed.

So I would say to Adrian, Adrian is the man, “You” is what Adrian sees in his mirror every morning in the bathroom and does not realise it true. 

But is it the same?

No, we see a “Mirrored reflection” that is the wrong way around, and we believe that “Mirrord reflection” is “You.” and it is “You,” but it can never be the man called “Adrian.”

Just think for a moment if we have an itch, we scratch it; “Mirror reflection” has no such sense and never scratches anything.

Tomorrow morning Adrian when looking in the mirror, say to your mind by taking a small step back to think and say, my wife is a lucky girl;  look at that “Handsome man (of a man) good looking,” I nearly said “Handsome devil.”

Then think again in your mind, then close your eyes and ask your reflection a question; open your eyes and see if Adrian gets an answer, and if he does see a psychologist, who will then send Adrian to see a psychiatrist for treatment in an asylum for Adrian and their safety, and probably for a very, very, long time.

So why do people keep saying it’s them; your mirrored reflection will only open its mouth and speak if Adrian does it for him; if we do that, then the police, who had a blank piece of paper, start filling it in, madness.

Identity (n.) c.1600, Sameness, oneness, state of being the same, from French identity (14c.), from Medival Latin identitatem (nominative identitas) “Sameness” ultimately from Latin idem (neuter) “The same.”

Our mirror image is similar but is not the same next time driving; look in your mirror at an ambulance fast approaching and look at the “Sign” ambulance; it is always the wrong way round; we do not write that way and expect people to read it.

Filial, we see the right way round, as in a son and daughter, we see the real them, but when we see them in a mirror, we can see the difference, but every time we look in the mirror at ourselves, we do not.

We would not try and talk to their reflection in a mirror, metal or glass because we would turn and look into their eyes.

Imagine you are at the fairground and your wife is holding their hands, so while you are going to get them a toffee apple and candyfloss because you had forgotten who wanted what, and in the mirror behind the woman serving, you ask their reflections who wanted what would Adrian expect an answer?

Adrian would not expect an answer? And Adrian would have turned, and looking at them, and shouted to get above the distraction and noise, and shouted to your wife, what is it the three wanted?

When we are born, our “Crown” is our placenta; this is what they legally think is “You” it is “Human,” and we are “Goods” to them and not “Property” to them; we are nothing more than a “Vessel” birth/berth like a ship and placed into a dock in their maternity ward once we have been assigned a number attached around our wrist.

Even if we are aborted, stillborn, or birthed alive, you are number and become the “Person” incapable of looking after yourself, and will set up a “Trust” even if it was aborted or stillborn because they have salvage rights and want to collect on their loss.

A man is a man, a woman is a woman, and a filial son or daughter, are clearly defined in those definitions to the meanings of those words; in their original definitions in an etymology dictionary.

Never let anyone believe otherwise, and we are all men, women, sons, and daughters of the “Father in heaven,” and not a “Recreation” of some government, and the “Trust” is set up for both “Mankind” and the “Person” to access.

In the beginning, the word, and the words, are used against us, and the fallen one knows what is to happen, and he knows more than we will ever comprehend between us all who have ever lived.

The creator, “The Lord God,” gave us his son to be the “Messiah,” to be the “Sacrificial Lamb,” to die in the body for our sins for whoever believes in him, and this is why we need to be “Born again” to rid ourselves of the brainwashing, indoctrination of false teachers who have led us astray, even by “Re-lig-i-on.”

We all need to think for ourselves as men and women we were meant to be; by shaking off these shackles in which we have been placed and continuing to accept; by consenting to be a “Person.”

Think of your mirror reflection, as it does not speak because it has no voice or hand to write with; everything is a contract, by the need to inform themselves by opening their mouths and using their hands to sign or autograph.

If people only understood if people in so-called authority are shouting at a man or woman, it is because that man or woman is doing the right thing by not playing by their rules.

They play both sides, like in this film I watched the other night; it was a Japanese film with English subtitles.

Zatoichi: It is set in the nineteenth century about a blind wandering “Yakuza” who eats some noodles, and then the lady brings him some “Saki;” the next scene is of a government official and a father whose crops have failed and is there with his daughter to “Sign” a contract.

The contract he “Signs” is for the hire of his daughter to work in the “Brothel” the old man (Farmer) is desperate so his whole family not starve to death, so they strike a deal agreement for five years, and once agreed signs with a fingerprint to “seal” the contract.

The girls would have been aged between 13-17, and it is the only thing they could do, as they have no other way without starving the whole family.

Then it moves to Zatoichi talking to the woman serving the “Saki,” and she tells him of the bind and plight of the farmer and his daughter. 

A Few seconds pause between each line, and it goes like this.

Talking about the official,

“They operate a brothel, too. The “Owner” is an “Officer” named Kakuzo.”

“It’s like wearing a sandal on each foot.” 

Zatoichi replies, “You  can`t only wear one sandal and walk?”

“I don`t mean wearing one side of a pair.” 

“But wearing two kinds.”

Zatoichi replies, “Oh, that`s what he does.”

“Exactly.”

“They could not harvest rice or crops, which put the farmer in a bind.”

“They have no food to eat.”

“When the farmers suffer, this place prospers, and girls between 13-17 come here to work, so the family do not starve.”

This father is agreeing to a contract that he does not want to “Sign” for all the right reasons, but he knows no other way.

This government official is being two-faced by working as a public official and privately has a man who knows how to profit when there is a bad or failed harvest to their detriment; and his gain.

That is what is meant by having a sandal on each foot and wearing two of a kind.

The official/owner knows when they can take advantage of us.

That official used a word I had not heard in a while, so what was that word?

It is “Filial.”

---

Pro Bono

Peter Thompson

21 February 2023

“Pro Bono.”

Adrian: does Adrian think inside the box, outside or both, question mark? 

Adrian says, it has been a long time since I have studied Latin, so I will not tax your mind too much.

The title “Pro bono” what does it mean, question mark?

If Adrian were to get a translation of “Pro bono” to confer what Adrian already knew that it translates into English as “For good, ” And I say it translates to “For evil,” who would have the correct answer, question mark?

Adrian would say, Peter, how can Peter be right, question mark?

Adrian would say I knew the correct answer even before I looked it up because Peter, I knew I was right in my translation by confirming it was correct by looking it up in a Latin to English dictionary, and along with an online translator with three different translators, so then Peter how can Peter get the definition of its meaning to mean “For evil,” question mark?

I would reply we can both be correct, but who has the answer correctly true, Adrian or Peter, so we are not babbling and clearly understand each other question mark? 

Imagine someone was to say does anybody understand Latin, and I need to know what “Pro bono” is defined to have the correct understanding of the true meaning of the word/phrase, question mark?

I reply, its true meaning is “For evil,” Adrian laughs, it does not, and it is defined in its definition of meaning as “For good,” and how can that be defined as, “For evil, Peter” Question mark?

My reply to Adrian and the one who posed the question is, “For whose good” question mark?

Well, Adrian, what would Adrian be thinking then?

There are always meaning hidden in Latin, and that is why the Roman Catholic Church, Courts, legislation and the so-called law society that the city of London hides with having only their official in their system (Courts) it their playground and Adrian or “You” will never understand the rules to the game because “You” or Adrian are not members in that club/society. 

Even if Adrian or “You” was, both would be kicked out for not playing the game they told both to do, and yes, it would be a “Red card” immediately.

So Adrian, if someone asked what “Pro bono” meant, what would Adrian tell them and would Adrian ever translate anything without trying to find what it really meant first?

Did Adrian notice how I put our names instead of “You,” it is easy to fall back into being brainwashed by the indoctrination we have all gone through, and that is how we should write the name and not “You” when writing to these people in so-called authority then they know they are talking to a “man/woman” and not a “You” as that is how they can hide behind a title officer, chief-constable, manager, that is not “Calling them out by name,” if they have a name, call them by it, and not address it to a building, corporation, department or a minister.

So Adrian’s translation would be correct, but Peter’s translation would have spoken what it really means in the truth, as people do not realise if we were to sit in court day after day, we would clearly see something was wrong.

We are under “Roman law,” and people do not realise it’s true, and the Empire turned into the church, and they still use Latin.

Latin flourished from about 75 B.C.E. to about 200 B.C. and became hidden, “Secret” means hidden, hidden in plain sight, and most people do not see or understand what it’s really saying.

When we assume the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or paper in that text, do we really understand what it is saying or its true meaning?

We should all see a lot deeper into everything these people are saying, and if a police officer said, “You come here,” would “You” do so?

If we did so without questioning who “You” was in the first place, or we deliver our consent to that “Tacit agreement,” and all because we assume and do not think by being “Proactive” by an “As-king” a simple question. 

Who is “U” I would ask, and then give them my definitions of the meaning of “U” is your meaning of “U” as on the,

 “U” is the symbol for Uranium on the Periodic table?

“U” is the twenty-first letter in the alphabet?

“U” is one of the hardest of the softwood tree “Yew”?

“U” the female sheep “Ewe”? 

So officer, which of them are we talking about? 

“U” know what I meant?

No, I do not?

I  met “You”? 

And what is your definition of that word?

They will use flowery words to obfuscate the issue: and this is why we need to all understand the simple word as “You, Person, In, At, Etc” and then how to understand the word they are using to entrap us.

This is how I see it.

                                 God.                                                                   ?

             The one true Father of creation.                            The fallen one.

                                  Law.                                                                Legal.

                                 Truth.                                                                  Lies.

                            The Messiah.                                                             ?

                       The Scarificial lamb.                                                      ?

                            Everlasting life.                                                          ?

                             The Bible.                                                             Re-lig-i-on.

What is the difference between the two columns? 

One has all the answers, and the other has more questions than answers.

How do we get into column one, believing in the One True God and his Son by following what The Father tells us, as he services us by showing us who listen and hear by understanding what he was willing to do for us?

The Father shows us he gave up his Son literally to show we can have eternal life by his Son dying in the body and arising three days later.

How did the Messiah show us to live by living as we should, serving others and not ourselves?

It is like a married couple, and if we were to do all we can for each other according to the scriptures as written in Exodus 20, we would all be at peace, at rest.

The path would be clear only if the other column was not trying to stop us, and it’s more than a game to them.

The Messiah lived in truth and did not lie, and he aided his fellow man in serving them in any way he could, and the other side did not like it, and the Sanhedrin turned against him to the point of having him put to death.

Re-lig-i-on forces have been killing each other ever since when we break down the meaning of the word  Religion (Re-lig-i-on), we get,

Re:

Lig:

I:

On:

Re: Means back to the original, or the best we can.

Lig: It reminds me of ligature “To tie, bind, tying, binging.

I:  First person singular.

 On: In or into a position in contact with and supported.

So am I repositioning myself; by tying myself to some ligature, by tethering myself by rope for fastening an animal?

Religion is the misspelling or deliberate spelling of “Re and Legion” hidden in plain sight.

Reattaching myself to a “Legion” in “Re” back to the original and “Legion,” a body of troops willing to kill.

The other side in column one is armed with the “Word” and is more cutting if used correctly, and it cuts deeper.

Re can mean plenty of different things, as in the Egyptians, Sun god, goods, property(whose property), a thing, back to the original place, or make anew again, repeat once more.

Man, woman, sons, and daughters can only live in the truth, and that is with the creator, the Father, and a “Person”  gathers dust on some forgotten shelves that nobody cares about, on a piece of paper.

---

Sea Fairing Terms of the Legal System

Peter Thompson

21 February 2023

I know, it’s that lousy penny yet again, the one that keeps bothering Adrian, But, and it’s a big but?

How can I explain all the “Sea Fairing Terms?” in the “Legal System?” to stop people from falling into the traps; that are already set?

So, they fully understand what I am trying to tell them, so there’s no confusion whatsoever?

So, I am going to list them “All” they need to know, So I thought of Adrian, and if I cannot explain it to Adrian in the simplest way possible, then no one will misunderstand, so is Adrian ready? 

Then please take a seat as I list them all they needed to know in the first place?

I replied to a podcast here on YouTube, so this is what; I wrote in the comment section.

“Which definition of the meaning of the word “Could” Is it not in the same light as “Would” or “Should? “Why not say “Can” and “Will” instead of “Would”, “Shall” instead of “Should?”

Does not the “Legal System” “Require” both parties to “Consent” to go before a “Judge?”

No “Consent,” “No Hearing,” and “No Court/Caught” (I Added “Caught” and will go back and edit to correct that mistake by me in my original comment.).

And there would be no jobs for people like the “Blackbeltbarrister,” but we know people falling for the “Tricks” and “Deceit” of this cheap “Deception.”

It is like a group of “Grifters” doing the three-card trick of finding the lady (queen).

Once we know how the “Trick” is “Performed,” it is all over and no need to build the stage the  “Fat Lady” has already sung.”

                                                  “The “Fat Lady” Has Sung,” “Means?”

“To “Sign-al” to the sailors that their “Run” ashore  had Ended,” get back to the “Ship,” the “Boat” is about to “Sail,” by clearing off and plunder some other naive fool who does not see the “Signs.”

Sorry, Adrian, In building up Adrian’s hopes of a thoroughly frank list of every single one. But I am sure you wanted me to be more precise/concise in my meaning of the phrase “The Fat Lady Has Sung.”

Adrian “Must” admit it’s a “Doozy,” or is it “Doozies,” who cares, hey?

 Let them draw up their “Gang-Plank” and set “Sail.”

It was always “Hidden In Plain Sight,” the building at the top of the building that shows it as a “Ship” literally hidden in plain sight, and we do not see it.

And I learned the hard way as I can spend time as I have just spent four and a half months “In” prison, “Thrown,” “In,” and “Thrown” out, so I have personal experience of how the corrupt system works. I will explain all that I did right and all that I did wrong, and I wish I could write a book about it.

Oh: I was never tried, so I never did go to court/caught, as I knew the three-times rule was the “Golden Rule.”

And once I get back on my feet will take all involved to court, where I will  be “At the court/Caught.”

When I have a chance will tell Adrian about it, I am not bitter, and meant some great friends there, and I mean friends.

Just have to go through my twenty-four, Correctness (Punctuation, Grammar).

Five Clarity (Clarity, Conciseness).

One Delivery (Tone Suggestions).

And most of it was already written and done, in the first place.

We really should put the “Cannons” back to stop them from landing again, just a shot across their bow, and if then they try again one below the water line, they would need to be “Bailout.”

Three-times Rule, I went down and was asked three times if I was “Mister Thompson” I kept my mouth shut and said nothing to the “Person” with the Prisoners van, went back to the “Cell,” and was told I was being released, I said what does mean?

Meaning “Why?” 

He mumbled, “Mmmmm discharged,” he did not know, and when I was told that I would need to “Sign” to be released, I said, “I am Signing nothing,” that put the “Cat amongst the pigeons.”

“I will tell Adrian (Notice, I have stopped using “You”) the complete story of this sorry saga, and I do not mean “Heroic” I mean “Saga” as in, “A long, involved story, account, or series of incidents.”