Flyer in re Publishing, in re Jaffe (2002), in re Forensic Science(s)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5MpWSXe0C4gYm5iMjdKWUVTaEU/edit?usp=drive_web



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0SG1D4fA_1PHYvlRPNGrxoXj926obyhTpXXcqArbqo/edit?usp=sharing

The Flyer & Workshop Curriculum Discussion Points - Bookletformat in re Development//

Outline of Case Cites in re Development in re herein in re VERIFICATION//

Maps & Terrain Studies in re Workshop Presentation// Presentation at location to be announced||

Notes at websites developed in re Pro Se Discovery at places of contention are matters for debate at workshop(s) or session in workshop at Public Venue as Noted LEGAL PRECEDENCE being Court upon SUMMONS for Abuse of Decency Laws; Abuse of FCC Broadcast Laws; Abuse of Subversive Control Board Act & Legislation Guidelines as SUMMONED to Federal Court (Date UNKNOWN) meaning the abovementioned Abuse(s) as in re Prosecution does not EXIST - meaning that "Agent" of Penal Code Violation does not Exist - meaning Penal Code Violation in re People v. Jaffe (2002) does not exist - meaning that in re Verification via Search Engines; CLETS; or other known Insurance means demonstrating any Penal Code Violation in re Jaffe (2002) is without Meritous Mention via any existing or otherwise Past Noted Violation of Parole of Penal Code = LIBEL to insinuate that any Conviction post 2002 is with Merit in re Jaffe (2002).

Making that Matter CLOSED - Pending in re EXPUNGEMENT or SUMMONS to displace in Pro Se DISCOVERY involving New Information & Circumstantial Evidence making in re Jaffe(2002) a Frivilous Filing via District Attorney; also a Matter of Higher Courts in Pronam Study in re Verification. Leading to State of California Republic being held to High Court Standard of False Incarceration, Over handed Application of Sentencing & Crimes Against Humanity in re Collocation Theory in re Ojai Valley Collocation Tower INTERVENTION in re Jaffe (2002) - meaning if any of those willing to SUMMONS will not SUMMONS then the Circumstantial Threshold has been met in Dismissed from Court in re Jaffe(2002 et seq) in likely most to majority of Matters not involving First Degree Homicide where Defendant would have to be Jaffe (2002) literally.

In that stead ... which .jaff FORENSIC File Diem in question would one care to be held to in re VERIFICATION in re SUMMONS via Allegations Jaffe (2002 et seq) has been engaged in Penal Code Infractions in re Homicide (PC187)?

In that stead ... Perjury in re Jaffe (2002) is not so much Forensically Impeachable via in Pro Se DISCOVERY via Jaffe in re VERIFICATION HEREIN. Circumstantially the FORENSIC matter is also then CLOSED via XPERTBASIC(TM) in re Jaffe(2002) though at et seq - other Diems matter to those Cites//

Jurisdiction is therefore in re VERIFICATION VIA XPERTBASIC(TM) vide FDIC in Camerata in re BIOMETRICS in re FORENSIC Audio Files vide BPT HEARINGS via in re VERIFICATION of BPT HEARING TAPES via in flight Black Box in re VERIFICATION in re Jaffe (2002 et seq) in re National Security Council et seq et al ATTESTATION of in re DISCOVERY in the District Attorney or Defense Lawyer Motion to Suppress or MOTION TO DISMISS vide DEMURRER a nolo contendere at City of Ojai Level that in re VERIFICATION/FORENSIC.jaff in re SUMMONS EXPERT TESTIMONY arrives at in re Multiple Landing Platform via in re Freedom of Inforamtion Act vide FDIC via NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT via SPACE TREATY LAW (1967, 2002) in re VERIFICATION of otehr Grand Jury In Camerata Motions in re VERIFICATION involving other matters NOT at Penal Code 187 Investigation - in re Verification Environmental Protection Act et seq et al in re False Testimony via in re in Pro Se DISCOVERY (SMJ03/06/2015) inclusive of Bin Ladin Assassination as Testimony.

That is pretty much the .jaff FORMAT debate in re FORENSIC ATTESTATION via in re DISCOVERY in re Matter at Docket in re VERIFICATION.  read at Adultry Case non Violent though attesting to several formated points of view in re Investigation & collocated to Some Air Force or NFL video demonstration of a Conflict at Jurisdiction/ non-violence//

What this actually means to Moi is simple - if i had broken a window - lossened the nuts holding her tire to her axel with any device - the matter would be metalic and seen via Space via SATCOM at her Residence in 2002 as i had no contest = that was where they found me = so if i had taken her Tire iron out of her Lexus - taht would be material evidence - or if a device was noted around the area & soem protperty damage was noticed judicially at that time that was NEW DAMAGE or ATTESTED to DAMAGE by Suspect -then in re Jaffe(20-02) would be VALID SOUND & COGENT.  That there is not a THRID ELEMENT to the ALLEGATION in re sentencing in re Arrest - means a Misdeameanor occured - not a felony matter involving Peanl Code 646.9(a)(b)(c) - as would have been Noticed in re VERIFICATION by this time.  Making the .mov a question whereas Jaffe (2002) is not the question in re Appeals.

I guess this makes soem sense to some minds - that is the point.