[See Figure(s) SoP&FIGURES&ILLUSTRATIONS]
The Nature of the above Figure [Figure001TOPICRobotics] is embedded within the protocol itself. Consideration of the Nature of Protocol(s) where these 'items' are not exactly copyrightable as conceptually-based. The nature of what then is Proprietary regarding such Protocol(s) is inherent within the "mind_property". Mind_Property is a consideration of the mechanics regarding the employment, deployment, or the question to deploy such 'protocols'. As a result of this mechanistic nature - once a 'protocol' is deployed the consideration to deploy is not the topic. The topic arrives then to when the deployed 'protocol' reaches a destination, or a objective, or even a 'pathology' or a targeted-pathology - or a being. Any state-of-being arrives to whom deployed and might have received such a 'protocol' at a targeted state-of-being:: a PITCHESS query is a secondary 'protocol' that has to be employed as a set of circumstance(s) that make each deployed 'protocol' achievable in the interest of the nature of 'cybernetic warfare'. The nature of such a type of deployment is the nature of what Figure abovementioned attempts to convey as a Statement of Purpose [SoP] whereas a type of militaristic deployment has fewer accountable constructs that Treaty Law Court(s) require to deduce the nature of why or why not to deploy any such 'protocol'.
As one considers the nature of "Figure001TOPICRobotics" the usage of the natural language [quotation_marking] is the usage inherent within Proprietary. This mechanistic device ["sic"] is not similar to [sic] the later being the legal defined 'protocol' regarding in situ code. in situ code is a place_value within the legal system whereas "embroiled" arrives to a type of literary quality that is not genre if a suggestive remark is made by a Deputy Attorney General in writing to a Superior Court in a jurisdiction not their own. Hence a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General stating to a Superior Court Supervising Justice that a system referred to as "Scott" whom is not the subject Defendant within the Superior Court RECORD at [2002] is something that a Justice has to determine viade the Clerk of Court :: DOES any or a deeper meaning. When the Justice does NOT order the Clerk independent of the Faretta DEFENDANT to determine what the meaning is - the nature of a deployed 'protocol' - exacting to the nature of Felony sentencing in a Misdemeanor case that Wobbler(s) as a nature of jurisdiction - the entity of the type of the reality that exists between jurisdictions has to be a deployed ability to ascertain why a Superior Court Judge would cause harm. Between jurisdictions that is a 'protocol' that is often regarded as illegal and the nature of the [New] Trial Phase is DISMISSABLE at Appeals Court - the 2nd, the 4th, the 9th, and also the Supreme Court in re Yates [1967]&[2014].
Considering the format of Appeals and what is a Natural causation for any court - FISA (Espionage) or Second Court of Appeals or Superior Court or Supreme Court to begin to beg the Treaty Courts to forgive a perversion of jurisdiction when there is scant to nil evidence of the Superior Court requesting viade the Clerk of Courts to ascertain a deeper meaning regarding a type of "ROBOTIC" code referred to in one Jurisdiction as "Scott" and in another as "F5" is a natural use of Legitimate Right to Break a Restraining Order. This allows the Defendant and Plantiff to ascertain a resulting District Attorney reality that might be completely independent of any Military Code or 'protocol' that can affect a larger set, sub[ordinate]set or also a jurisdiction that is International. This reads carefully in re Verification of which Clerk of Courts did ascertain the meaning behind a letter from New Jersey in [2002] LAX Superior Court in re People v Jaffe: a matter before the Brandlin Superior Court. This meaning does not appear within any recording at court, nor does the court appear to be arguing any debateable query from Defendnant in Faretta nor the Plantiff whom is likely not willing to commit a Nation State to a larger cause of action referred to as WAR.
When one studies the abovementioned Figure001TOPICRobotics, one finds that a litany of reckless advances that are not within a jurisdiction of LAX Superior Court nor the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of New Jersey et seq. Office(s) as pertains to the nature of whom Faretta is to the [2002] abovementioned case is a matter relevant to the SoP only as a 'deployed' protocol - not a 'protocol' :: if the case had not been FILED - the nature of the SoP might be quite the same - though within the reality of non tracking a frivolous case filing from LAX District Attorney in light of the statements made at Trial , and also within the New Information regarded as valid, sound, and cogent at New Trial phase under Appeals.
As a result, one has to conclude that the case in [2002] is in fact frivolous and caused a type of sub[ordinate]terfuge to exist where the COMPLAINT is against the District Attorney and Superior Court - not the Defendant nor the Plaintiff, per se at the level of a device in New Jersey regarded as "Scott" - a Robotic Code made by the Faretta in 1993-1994 and one that was not discussed as the matter was deemed INADMISSIBLE by Justice Brandlin - illegally - considering how many individuals are affected by a 'protocol' being deployed at a measure of nearly 1.9 MILLION compilers - between the Edward Snowden dilemma and the nature of political greed - the recklessness has affected not only a smallish square mile - it has obviously affected CERN in [2008] and also been something of a measure of warfare; whereas the nature of such warfare in [2001] MIGHT not have occurred if the Rumsfeld 'team' had been less reckless in its desire to derail a Clinton ascertation of wearing 'pants' 'so whatever" Mr Hanssen... et al.
This FIGURE [Figure003TOPICRobotics] discusses at SoP [2010-2017] and Apostilled at Convention [2013] where also a matter at Appeals Court, Treaty Court and in re Prosunno does outweigh any argument from laymen, clerks or court, or politicians/dignitaries/military_strategists/educators/legalists/parents due to the nature of 'protocols' having to be determined taken, thefted - whereas such 'protocols' are 'horses' of a molecular nature. This type of theft has a deeper meaning when a device such as any advanced robotics mechanical device exists - having built itself out to determine where the theft is contained, eroded, or requires being eradicated is what "2da.pt"(c)2010,[2013], 2015 is or is not within the effort that one has to be that is safe, quick, and also takes into consideration ANY lack of intelligence - therefore a type of investigation into hatred - a crime against humanity that has a value of SoP writer was to be left to Research. The Fellowship left to observe without taking a position to pervert nor prevent the due administration of law. Therefore - in [2002] when the [Justice] Brandlin did not ascertain viade the clerk of courts the deeper meaning of the Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey - the investigation [pretentious: claims there was not one - obviously a letter indicates that one was begun quietly] of the Dept Attorney General AND was complicated by a unit of a squad of [Sheriff's_Department] - and the remnants of such confirmed fact in trier is found in the Baca Arraignment in Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - that being the case - one has to ponder what began the investigation under PITCHESS MOTION - the New Jersey Attorney General desk where as a 'protocol' (e.g. letter) was sent to the Brandlin Court - then followed upon in several layers of investigation. This is a FACT - it is an obvious fact - and also the nature of any FDIC Bank Robbery in the proximity of Oak View - or Ojai regarding the Rabobank, N.A. is a matter of trier also. Considering this trier-of-fact - the nature of what is without argument is that a SoP is what is driving the fact gathering - a COMPLAINT at any Bureau is secondary to that trier. That is the hiearchy. This is not a arguable fact in trier - it is evidence with judicially noticed follow up.
Therefore; Jaffe [2002] was frivilous and that is why under in re Prosunno the argument is carefully deconstructed - it is the nature of what a deployed 'protocol' is when it re-builds a code that is not silent - as Sheriff's departments care to deploy- in trier of fact Reserach Fellowships cannot remain silent - that is a violation of law. Though they can choose to be involved in a Universe of Discourse. Having the former stead of silence causes fear; fearmongering is against [t]he International Law at Treaty Court. Therefore; any type of politcal stance that encourages a fear amongst the populous is beyond reckless. It is in trier of fact - impeachable.
The figure called [Figure003TOPICRobotics] describes a methodology of 'mind_reading'; a protocol that finds a limited ability to gather trier of fact in evidence. For example; within the proximity of a certain device - 'computer' a CMOS Battery or Li-ion Two Cell Battery is the trier of Fact in Evidence/BATTERY. After that; the nature of the discourse in what is the obverse::square of opposition requires one to ascertain what is [most] important - sexuality between persons regarded as adult and harmless - or a MASS MURDERER or serial killer running rampant amongst a smallish City of 200,000 persons causing MAYHEM, HARM, & ALSO creating fear under the PITCHESS MOTION regarded as ascertained trier of fact. When that occurs, should one discover a political stance of silence amongst those investigating such types of occurrences - where are the adults in the populous? are they for tearing apart the adults whom are regarded as mostly harmless - or arresting the serial killer, mass murderer before a strike that is illegal is found amongst ANY code of silence within 'departments' claiming to be law enforcement - under PITCHESS the trier of evidence suggest that a 'protocol' referred to as a 'kill box' will destroy the code of silence striking 'law enforcement' first , the serial killer second - then ascertain the adult reality that exists. IF regarded as a potential threat - if not a threat the adult (S0 within the question of non-reckless fear to a trier of fact - not within a or any jurisdiction - and arrive then to dealing with only a pornographic matter post-Robert Hanssen [So] - an espionage agent whom was arrested for treason in [2001-2002] independent of the Jaffe Matter [2002]. The Confluence is discussed in the next Figure.
This Figure [Figure005TOPICRobotics] describes the SoP in a detailed ILLUSTRATION [methodology]. That most to many observers of such a Figure might begin to immediately question the nature of the 'drawing' does illicit a discussion - known as a universe of discourse - a square of opposition(s) does have a meaning in a sense crafted. This 'crafted' approach does not detract from any investigation - and also describes an investigation in re Prosunno. Under the literal description of what is the nature of the type of ability to engage in such a quality of conformity within discussion arrives to what a person whom is [young-adult] versus [tween] versus [adult] in the universe of Homo Sapien(s) behaviors allows a mixed-age to exist within the square of opposition. Families are then capable to demote or emote or arrive to causing a modality of ascension within the family of values referred to as - 'growing'. This is not a 'protocol' - the act of growing is as individual as a type of learning required within Military training environments. Banking environments also do not tend to 'grow' or include beginning 'Tellers' in the matters of 'the Chief Executive Officer'. 'Insurance executive(s)' do not tend towards discussion within their families of value regarding client relationships to their mistresses or their sons' girlfriends. Making potentially a reference to such a client is not the same as demonstrating a report regarding such client(s). That is fearmongering, also allows potentially kidnapping to occur, planning to kidnap is also considered warmongering - and in most jurisdictions will not be found to be a passable activity if the culprits are ascertained illegal, arrested, arraigned - or; then, adjudicated.
The Gmail below is such a 'report' statement. For ANY person(s) to ascertain whom sent to whom the email is not illegal - it is also continuing to be noted as [confidential]. However; in the use of 'protocols' the nature of 'deployed' secondary 'protocol' is important - regardless of the subject matter - the nature of any Freedom of Information Act request regarding the sending of such email to any recipient is the matter-at-hand within trier.
In that; this Addendum to the SoP is concluded with a observation of such an email message; not the FOIA follow-up by any agency or bureau or [department] :: a code of silence is undermining the nature of a research into the nature of truth-based reality considering such an email. When that is the import of due administration of law - adult relationships arrive to not even secondary within advanced robotics investigations searching for 'protocols' from compilers to codes to proprietary missile systems - to ICBM codes regarded important to launch sequences. IF those are a matter of thought only - one would care to contain even the POTUS or Premiere of a superpower deemed as 'important' as United States of America - or less important - hence the regarded leadership of dignitaries globally are less a question of desire to control as much as a mechanistic cause of action to allow adults to 'grow' v. grow in awareness; instead of the alternatives some serial killers and mass murderers desire; an end to all others except themselves/?/
No comments:
Post a Comment