[continued from previous message]

representation of the unity of consciousness linking together several
other representations, or a representation of their relation in a single concept (9: 101). In the Critique of Pure Reason he characterizes
judgment as [Pure general logic] deals with concepts, judgments, and inferences, corresponding exactly to the functions and order of those
powers of the mind, which are comprehended under the broad designation
of understanding in general… If the understanding in general is
explained as the faculty of rules, then the power of judgment is the
faculty of subsuming under rules, i.e., of determining whether something
stands under a given rule (CASUS DATAE LEGIS) or not.
(A130-132/B170-172) <https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2004/entries/kant-judgment/>

WHILST WE HAVE DESIGNATED THE SEMANTICAL BASIS FOR A RATIONAL FACULTY OF
RULES WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SINGULARITY as IDEA
TEMPLATE TO QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT (then as EMPRESS and
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH). And UNDOUBTEDLY the relevant jurisprudent
principle of CASUS DATAE LEGIS is known and conjectured upon but not
with any substantial clarity.

"Kant restricts the sense of 'Judgment" to the act of "subsuming under
rules, that is, of distinguishing whether something falls under a given
rule or not (CASUS DATAE LEGIS)" (id. A 132-34, B 171-74). This sense is borrowed from lawyerly usage, not from logic, for, as Kant shows, logic
has nothing to say regarding this operation. There are, and there can
be, no rules regarding the application of rules. If Kant is right, a
sizeable part of what we take to be "law," and almost all jurisprudence,
are nothing but a futile striving to overcome this essential unruliness
of judgment. How can it be that the saying of law is lawless?

Perhaps, however, even to lawyers, the essence of a judgment does not
lie in the application of a rule to a particular case, but rather in the statement, or restatement, of the rule to be applied (eg: #451 - PRAXIS
OF RATIONALITY OF WHICH THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE). If law consists of
rules, and if rules themselves are general propositions stating
obligations in general terms, then the properly 'judicial" in a judgment
would bet he stating of rules. The"case"would then matter only as
providing an occasion for such a ruling. If so, 'Judging," juridictio,
would find its most manifest instantiation in what we call
"legislation," legisatio, from legem tollere, the elevation of a lex, or statute, to its position of authority, which is always at once also the corresponding degradation of another.

Kant too, perhaps following this unmistakable hint of language, found a
kind of judgment in which the casus itself was manifestly decided,
indeed incontrovertibly, although the rule under which the fallen case
fell was still to be found, and would eventually deny itself entirely to
man's power to say. To this type of judgment, he devoted the most heroic
of his works, which he called a critique of the power of judgment,
Kritik der Urteilskraft. There the will to judge seems to run up against
its outer limits. In what sense indeed is there still a 'Judgment," that
is, a saying of law, when the supposed "law" withdraws into
ineffability?" [Vanderbuilt Law Review, Volume 48, Issue 4 Issue 4 - May
1995]

To that end we've included the broader statement on an identified CHRISTOLOGICAL AND METASCHEMA OF EVASION WITH PARADIGM EQUIVALENCE TO
FASCIST IDENTITY (ie. the BIPARTITE @1 - SOVEREIGN AUTONOMY DYNAMIC / @5
- STATE AS ITS INVENTION), from which you can conclude that if ISLAM has
only a CIRCUMSTANTIAL / SPECULATIVE CHRISTOLOGY THAT HAS NO CRUCIFIXION
then IPSO FACTO it envisions a METASCHEMA OF EVASION that is being
deployed and detrimental to anything but its ANTHROPOLOGICAL idealism.

#68 #11 #44
#17 #41 #65
#38 #71 #14

The TRIPARTITE use of a temporal heuristic as metakosmeo which has an
implicit conception of autonomy rather than a bipartite
HETEROS-AFFECTION (ie. I utilised this in relation to the #328 -
TRANSFORMATION PROTOTYPE as its therapeutic imperative) stricture such
as the NUMI / NUMEN AUGUSTI [#38, #71, #14] metakinesis inducement as imposition [#17, #41, #65] made upon autonomy.

On that physiological basis the police member's presumption of guilt
resulting in the elimination of GEORGE FLOYD is mitigated. Any implicit adverse institutional [#68, #11, #44] imperative which is self evident
since we stated it before the findings of those systemic prejudices were
made known, ought not be ipso facto imputed against the police officer's
#237 - USE OF FORCE as an AUTO-AFFECTIVE action.

Again, using the same #71 - DOMINION array construct, it ought to be
possible to resolve the #468: PERPLEXING QUESTION (#17) of prudent #519: discernment (#68) made in relation to the #495: seminal cause (#44) for
the exercising of #462: dominion (#11) corresponding to #465: limits
(#14) and the viability of #492: freewill (#41).

#123 as [#40, #1, #10, #2, #10, #20, #600] = ʼôyêb (H341): {UMBRA: #13 %
#41 = #13} 1) (Qal) *ENEMY*; 1a) personal; 1b) national;

#516 (-> #65) - *METAKOSMEO* *ASSOCIATOR* as [#6, #8, #6, #90, #6, #400] /
#519 (-> #68) as [#8, #6, #90, #400, #10, #5] /
#522 (-> #71) as [#2, #8, #6, #90, #400, #10, #6] = chûwts (H2351):
{UMBRA: #104 % #41 = #22} 1) *OUTSIDE*, outward, street, the outside;

As the need for an enquiry method to determine viability of the DOMINION
array [] to assay the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY for viable action. A
high acumen -/+ of those #n anchors is evidence of prudent rather than instinctive action.

Whilst my usage of language is not as superlative, I AM (ie. I = #123 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY / INTELLECT, AM = #82 - TERMS OF COMPLIANCE: @491
- PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY TO @1 - SELF) nevertheless able within a
TRIPARTITE paradigm as grounding for perspective to then accommodate by syncretic progression DERRIDA's obtuse semantical construct which is a BIPARTITE encapsulation of being as: "what he is trying to do with auto-affection: if the auto-position, the automonstrative autotely of
the ‘I,’ even in the human, implies the ‘I’ to be an other that must welcome within itself some irreducible hetero-affection."

Simply expressed as an ontic premise, if there are reciprocal I = #123 - judgement sensibility / intellect, then an obligating norm is implied as conformity to rule-based conventions:

#246 (ANTI-THESIS) - UTTERANCE; ACTIONS / #410 - OBLIGATING NORM (rule
based: BEAR NO FALSE WITNESS)

I did convey that a historical dependence upon the LUOSHU reference
object introduces an anthropological idealism associative to the META
LOGIC FALLACY within its #38 - *JUPITER* *PRINCIPLE* as aesthetic (ie.
the hypotenuse thesis) which is made against #492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL
(#41 + #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY) being a methodology of #491 -
AGENCY that we redacted two policing #237 - USE OF FORCE scenarios (not included here) as CASE STUDIES to their metaphysical constructs relative
to the DOMINION ARRAY in the context of the COMMONWEALTH being a
CAESAROPAPISM and DEFENDER [#44, #17, #38]@(#123 / #99 -- to deploy the DOMINION array anchors as a TRIPARTITE intellectual construct against
the ontic substitution premise within the machinery as BIPARTITE
sovereign / autonomy dynamic) OF THE FAITH: DIEU ET MON DROIT conforming
to a SUPERORDINATE TRIPARTITE NUMBER CONSTRUCT.

"THE JEWS ANSWERED HIM, WE HAVE A LAW, AND BY OUR LAW HE OUGHT TO DIE,
BECAUSE HE MADE HIMSELF THE #415 - *SON* (ie. FOSTERING (yǎng): to
raise; to *BRING* *UP* (*CHILDREN*, animals); to give birth / #81 - 𝍖養
= #532 - shâbar (H7665): *BRING* *TO* *THE* *BIRTH*) OF GOD... AND WENT
AGAIN INTO THE JUDGMENT [#1521 = praitṓrion (G4232): 'HEAD-QUARTERS' IN
A ROMAN CAMP; MAGNIFICENT PALACE OF HEROD (son of a hero) THE GREAT;
#341 - MAIN CATHEDRAL (TO THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST) OF THE RUSSIAN
ARMED FORCES *CONSECRATION* ON 14 JUNE 2020 / #387 - *VICTORY* *DAY*
WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATHEDRAL WAS COMPLETED ON 9 MAY 2020] HALL ...

#509 - *YAHAD* (JEWISH / CHRISTIANS) / #516 - *METAKOSMEO* ASSOCIATOR =
3 APRIL 33 AD

    #232 - *CUNNING* *PLAN* / NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 20 JUNE 2023 as
[#20, #100, #1, #60, #1, #50] /
    #237 - *USE* *OF* *FORCE* / NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 20 JUNE 2023 as [#5, #20, #100, #1, #60, #1, #50] = krázō (G2896): {UMBRA: #928 % #41 =
#26} 1) to croak; 1a) of the *CRY* *OF* *A* *RAVEN*; 1b) hence, to cry
out, cry aloud, vociferate; 1c) *TO* *CRY* *OR* *PRAY* *FOR*
*VENGEANCE*; 2) to cry; 2a) *CRY* *OUT* *ALOUD*, speak with a loud voice;

BUT THE JEWS *CRIED*-G2896: OUT, SAYING IF THOU LET THIS MAN GO, THOU
ART NOT CAESAR'S FRIEND: WHOSOEVER MAKETH HIMSELF A KING SPEAKETH
AGAINST CAESAR." [John 19:7, 12]

It ought to be understood that #237 - USE OF FORCE is a conceptual form presently deployed by our state police whose motto is TENEZ LE DROIT /
UPHOLD THE RIGHT that is also an ontic / deme boundary and a general
principle of #491 - AGENCY (ie. no less applicable to healthcare)
capacity in conformity to [... #40 - LAW / MODEL (FE)] as then a
functional #277 - RIGHT TO PLACE A TEST which is distinct to the #111 - FALLACIOUS OR VACUOUS assertion that attaining #71 - *DOMINION* [#38 -
FULLNESS (SHENG), #33 - CLOSENESS (MI)] is judgement sensibility's
ultimate end as it's centre of value.

#71 as [#1, #30, #10, #30] /
#73 as [#6, #1, #30, #6, #30] /
#81 as [#1, #30, #10, #30, #10] /
#111 as [#1, #30, #10, #30, #600] /
#123 as [#2, #1, #30, #10, #30, #10, #600] = ʼĕlîyl (H457): {UMBRA: #71
% #41 = #30} 1) of nought, *GOOD* *FOR* *NOTHING*, worthless; 1a) *OF* *PHYSICIANS*, a shepherd, *A* *DIVINATION*; 1b) of false gods;

Which is also a requisite for GNOSIS EX MACHINA being a nomenclature
provision of acceptable meta descriptors for articulating the viable
boundary (ie. SUGGESTED BY THE EXPRESSION nán táo fǎ wǎng (難逃法網): [#79 -
𝍔難 = #530 / #49 - 𝌶逃 = #500 / #40 - 𝌭法 = #491] - IT IS HARD TO ESCAPE
THE DRAGNET OF THE LAW; THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW) of consciousness instantiation, having a correspondence to the cosmological primitives
(ie. LAWS OF NATURE: fǎ dù (法度): [#40 - 𝌭法 = #491 / #52 - 𝌹度 = #503]
- (A) LAW / chéng wén fǎ (成文法): [#73 - 𝍎成 = #524 / #47 - 𝌴文 = #498 /
#40 - 𝌭法 = #491] - STATUTE) published within the CANON OF SUPREME
MYSTERY (太玄經) TETRADS of 4 BCE.

It is therefore UNLIKELY (in my humble opinion) that you'll find a
COMPETENT JUDGE let alone a PROSECUTOR who could make any determination
of WAR CRIMES in the circumstance of a BIPARTITE NUMBER ICONOCLASM
against the TRIPARTITE NUMBER premise such as the #451 - PRAXIS OF
RATIONALITY.

Such a pity then that you would not be able to prosecute WAR CRIMES on
the basis of either NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER or any
PREDISPOSITION TO ADVERSE BEHAVIOURAL REINFORCEMENT BY METAKINESIS (ie.
war) as an ICONOCLASM against FREEWILL from a BIPARTITE NUMEBR worldview
such as ISLAM which claims a piety established upon a metaphorical root
(eg: #232 - METEOR IDOL SECRETED WITHIN THE KAABA) and a demanded
SUBJUGATED WILL.

However if misconduct occurred in the advancement of the SEDITIOUS CAUSE relating to the IRISH CATHOLIC REPUBLICANISM / KNIGHTS TEMPLAR (THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST) RENEWED ON 11 APRIL 201,5 I would then prosecute.

Otherwise, I would propose the adoption of a #237 - USE OF FORCE / #277
- RIGHT TO PLACE A TEST methodology as an effective means for assaying
and negation by the introduction of an alternative postulate upon the
thinking dynamic concept of #123 - INTELLECT and its relationship to
#164 - DOMINION as impetus for #205 - STRATEGIC ACTION.

Towards that end I have provided defence media with the ONTIC as
MATHEMATICAL IDEA TEMPLATE to QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT which as ANTHROPOLOGICAL SINGULARITY and ONTIC VARIANCE provides a CENTRAL means
for FACILITATORS / ARBITRATORS of FREEWILL.

Those philosophical contemplations which have now taken some
considerable time (many years) to formulate into a comprehensive,
substantial and persuasive jurisprudent argument was then the basis as
to the nature of a disclosure recorded within A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
REQUEST INTO THE INCIDENT AT THE STAR HOTEL, 173 RAYMOND STREET, SALE @
1130 TO 1245 HOURS ON SUNDAY 26 MARCH 2017:

"Have dealt with the male customer once prior, where ... [CENSORED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 33(1)] ... On this particular occasion, he
mentioned having been up since 2 AM working on ANTI-TERRORISM documents,
that he was a very important person to the county and had UNUSUAL
SKILLS, etc. All of which he revealed in a quick conversation before ordering."

Is it not as "ANTI-TERRORISM" action, by an "UNUSUAL SKILL" to exercise
faith in GOD with the intellectual and spontaneous capacity in writing a
POEM constituting a dialectic depth of fifteen lines including
consecutive WORDS OF THE DAY for 8 to 12 DECEMBER 2016;
www.dictionary.com and then weaponise it subsequently, with just a TITLE
CHANGE on 6 MARCH 2022 as [#371, #392, #424, #492] for the occasion of
an important anniversary, as resonance to the RUSSIAN DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
AND SORROW (the day Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941) on 22 JUNE
2023?

TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE: “Why did you put this rubbish on our Triple F Cafe Facebook Page?”

<https://www.facebook.com/Triple-F-Cafe-freshfastfood-225837177482258>

DOLF: "Because that is what occupied my mind (ie. it is a demand of
compliance which was made to 1.6 billion people) when I came into your
cafe this last morning CAROL (manly, strong)...

NOTE: The POEM was initially written as empathetic response to a
PERVERSE JUDGMENT on 9 DECEMBER 2016 by the DUTCH COURTS within CASE
NUMBER: 09/837304-15 against GEERT WILDER'S public speech on 19 MARCH 2014:

On 12 MARCH 2014 the Dutch politician GEERT WILDERS and several members
of his party, PVV, also known as The Freedom Party, visited a market in
The Hague. Part of their visit was broadcast on national TV and GEERT
WILDERS said that his party would make the city more safe, more
sociable, and if possible, make it a city with fewer Moroccans. When
later confronted with his statement WILDERS held that he had merely
referred to criminal Moroccans and Moroccans receiving benefits from the
state.

On 19 MARCH 2014 the Freedom Party held an election rally at CAFÉ DE
TIJD in The Hague. During the meeting, GEERT WILDERS held a speech which
was recorded and broadcast on TV. In his speech he stated: “Before I go,
I would like everyone here to answer the following three questions.
Three questions, please give a clear answer which defines our party, the
PVV. Do you want more or less European Union?” The crowd present
repeatedly shouted “less”. WILDERS then went on to pose the second question: “Do you want more or less Labour Party?” The crowd again
shouted “less”. WILDERS continued: “And the third question is, and actually I’m not allowed to say it, because you get reported to the
police, and maybe there are even D66 prosecutors who will launch a case,
but freedom of expression is a great good and we haven’t said anything
that isn’t allowed, we haven’t said anything that’s incorrect, so I ask you: do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”. The crowd repeatedly shouted “less”. GEERT WILDERS then concluded his speech with the words: “Nah, we’ll arrange it”.

At the election meeting a coordinator (witness 3) from the PVV had been
aware that WILDERS would ask the public whether they wanted fewer
Moroccans. The coordinator had been asked (by witness 4) to instruct the
public in advance of the question and answer. Before the speech witness
4 had heard GEERT WILDERS emphasize that it should be as strong as
possible so the content would be picked up by the press and broadcast.
The legal implications of the speech had not been discussed. The issue
of including the topic of Moroccans or criminal Moroccans was discussed
and there was some concern whether there would be a prompt response from
the public. This was the reason why witness 4 called witness 3 and asked
him to ensure that a proper interaction would take place.

Among the many Dutch politicians who have had a FATWA [Arabic: فتوى,
TELOS: #487 - RITUAL ADMINISTRATION (#36 - STRENGTH: CH'IANG); MALE:
#237 - USE OF FORCE; FEME: #163 - ANGRY, RAGING, VEXED; ONTIC: #156 -
LIVING SUBSTANCE; DEME: #548 - COMMANDMENT] issued against them,
possibly the best-known internationally is GEERT WILDERS. In 2008
WILDERS received 285 death threats, with a further 264 aimed at all
Dutch politicians. There were a total of 145 protection orders for
WILDERS in 2006; in 2005 there were 110.



<https://gatesofvienna.net/2010/09/australian-fatwa-behead-wilders/>

An Australian imam named FEIZ MUHAMMAD who as head of the Global Islamic
Youth Centre in Liverpool, a suburb of Sydney is viewed by intelligence agencies worldwide as one of the main jihadist ideologues, a great
inspiration for young Western Muslim radicals had issued a FATWA calling
for the Dutch politician’s beheading.

According to Dutch newspaper Elsevier on 3 SEPTEMBER 2010: "PVV leader
GEERT WILDERS [was] angry at the Dutch Intelligence Service [AIVD]. The
AIVD is in the possession of a sound recording on which WILDERS is
threatened with death by the imam on a secluded site of jihadists, in
response to questions by Dutch radicals says:

“WE SEE THE #271 / 348 / #372 - *EVIL* FILTH OF PEOPLE SUCH AS THAT
FILTHY DUTCH POLITICIAN. ANYONE WHO #238 / #485 - *MOCKS* OUR LEARNING,
LAUGHS AT THE ISLAM AND DEGRADES IT MUST ENTER DEATH, DECAPITATE HIM,
CUT OFF HIS HEAD.”

The PVV leader was only informed in detail about the matter around 2
SEPTEMBER 2010. Accordingly WILDERS says he is shocked, and last night consulted ERIC AKERBOOM, National Coordinator for Counterterrorism (NCTb).

“I urgently want to know why the NCTb and AIVD never informed me about this.”

He also asked “what kind of consequences this has for me,” and called
the recording “terrible”." <http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/274863/Radicale-imam-adviseert-Geert-Wilders-te-onthoofden.htm>
[Link no longer active]

DOES THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAVE AN EX-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO ORDER *BIRCHING*?

If one considers as corporal punishment the legal precedent of the cat
o' nine tails, which is a type of multi-tailed whip or flail. It
originated as an implement for severe physical punishment, notably in
the Royal Navy and British Army, and as a judicial punishment in Britain
and some other countries.

The term judicial birch generally refers to the severe type in use for court-ordered *BIRCHINGS*, especially the Manx hazel birch. A 1951
memorandum (possibly confirming earlier practice) ordered all UK male
prisons to use birches (and cats-o'-nine-tails) from only a national
stock at South London's Wandsworth prison, where they were to be
'thoroughly' tested before being supplied in triplicate to a prison
whenever required for use as prison discipline.

FOSTER V MINISTER FOR CUSTOMS AND JUSTICE B92/1999 [2000] HCATRANS 121
(23 MARCH 2000)

KIRBY J: I think the question is still relevant because we have to test
your theory of the section against the possibility that the Minister has
to, as it were, speculate not only on what the discretion that will be exercised by the sentencing judge will be, not only what might be the
subject of some review of the sentence, but what factors would enter
into the sentence, such as offers of return to people who have been
defrauded or a pleading of guilty and so on.

Are any of the other matters that have to be considered under the
section of this problematical class? In other words, the death penalty,
well, one just looks that up. But are any of the other matters that the Minister has to take into account of this variable malleable content?
Torture, for example. Would one know whether in a particular case for particular offences - I suppose you could have some offences where even
in oppressive countries there is no torture but in such countries there
is for particular offences having a political character, so presumably - - -

MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honour, the direct answer is none of the other
specific matters that are addressed in section 22 are of that flexible
kind. With respect to torture, one can readily see that say a sentence
of *BIRCHING* might be regarded here as torture and if that is possible
under an enactment of a foreign country, then that is readily
ascertainable as a matter of objectivity. However, although we are
speaking of Commonwealth countries here, some of them from time to time
are in such a state that one could readily accept that in some of them,
despite the absence of the provision for lawful imposition of torture,
there may be a risk that that would occur and that would be something
that - - -

KIRBY J: There was a report only last week of one Commonwealth country
where they were going to cut the person up and do it in public and do
other such things to the person, so I assume it just depends from time
to time on the evidence available.

MR SOFRONOFF: Yes, and in our submission, although it is true that the
actual sentence that would be passed would depend upon a great number of matters, some of which will not be known until much later, it is always possible for a range to be given by those who are familiar with such
things, such that for the broad purposes that the Attorney is required
to consider it is possible to conclude that no oppression would result
because some significant gaol term would, nevertheless, be imposed - 3
months, 4 months, 5 months, whatever it might be such that the arguments
- - -

...

KIRBY J: Does *BIRCHING* come up under any other head or is it only
available - - -

MR SOFRONOFF: It could only be torture, your Honour. If it is not
torture, and minds could differ about that - they obviously do because,
as we all know, somebody was caned in Singapore a few years ago. If it
is not torture then it is certainly a matter that would be - as a likely
or possible punishment, ought to be considered by the Minister before
sending - in that case it was a youthful offender. It was not extradited
but if it were an extradition case she would have to consider whether
that was a matter that would render it oppressive.

The purpose of my mentioning severe punishment is this, once one admits
that a severe punishment may be material, one admits that punishment is material and once one admits that punishment is material it can be
readily accepted, in our submission, that if what is being sought is extradition in circumstances where no significant punishment will be
imposed, the Minister may consider that that is something that renders
the surrender oppressive or too severe a punishment.

McHUGH J: But does not your argument lead to the conclusion that the
Attorney or Minister must examine the weight of the evidence to see
whether or not the person may be convicted?

MR SOFRONOFF: No, your Honour.

McHUGH J: Why not?

MR SOFRONOFF: Because one thing that does emerge from the Extradition
Act is that one does not have an occasion ever to test guilt or innocence.

McHUGH J: But why should not the Attorney have that obligation? If he
has got an obligation to consider the sentence, why should he not have
an obligation to consider the likelihood of conviction?

MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honour, I would answer the question that she would
have an obligation to consider the likelihood of conviction only if it
can be demonstrated that there is no real likelihood of conviction. That
would be a rare case, but I say that because there is authority in this
Court that that would be a matter that would render an extradition
oppressive. The case is - - -

HAYNE J: But that is likely, is it not - that is likely to take you over
to accusation not made in good faith? If there is no realistic prospect
of conviction, one is at once perhaps into the field of accusation not
in good faith and, if you are not in that territory, then where lies the
middle ground? [Copyright in the High Court of Australia, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS. AT CANBERRA @ 1451 HRS ON THURSDAY 23 MARCH 2000]

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2000/121.html>

I have followed GEERT WILDERS on TWITTER for the last year at least and
am aware by his RETWEETS that he indeed does continue to receive the
most graphically violent and depraved of death-treats (ie. having had
#419 - SLAUGHTERED MEAT placed in my mailbox on 15 NOVEMBER 2017 I know
how he feels), and his blog entry @ 0930 HRS ON 25 MAY 2023 which was
only on 24 JUNE 2023 accessed by a BING search, himself states:

"I RECEIVE THOUSANDS OF DEATH THREATS FROM MUSLIMS IN THE NAME OF THE
PROPHET MUHAMMAD. BUT WHO WAS HE REALLY?"

We would submit that since the OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL has an
EX-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY as implication established by #940 - RIGHT TO RULE
and according to #902 - RULE OF LAW, that in order to preserve the ANTHROPOCENTRIC SINGULARITY FIRST PRINCIPLES being the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY which as metakosemeo is constitutionally the product of a CAESAROPAPISM as intrinsic to QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT and the
ontology of the human being (ie. homosapiens) reflecting IMAGO DEI,
within the circumstance of ICONOCLASM AGAINST THOSE FIRST PRINCIPLES
being the nature to "THOUSANDS OF DEATH THREATS OF THE MOST GRAPHIC AND
BESTIAL KIND" as the consequence of a FATWA calling for the Dutch politician’s beheading by an Australian IMAM named FEIZ MUHAMMAD to meet
the threshold of a demand for ACTION by the GOVERNOR GENERAL authorising
the *BIRCHING* of all such persons engaged in that ex-judicial impiety
by FATWA.

The notion of 'boy-pussy' was a smaller version of the cat-o-nine-tails
as known to being a colonial authoritative punishment instrument of
slavery / shipping and gave rise to the expression:

'Take it like a man'!

The last *BIRCHING* sentence in Jersey was carried out in 1966.
*BIRCHING* was abandoned as a policy in 1969 but lingered on the statute
books. Obsolete references to corporal punishment were removed from
remaining statutes by the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions)
(No. 2) (Jersey) Law 2007.

Formal floggings — those ordered by the ex-judicial authority of the
captain or court martial — were administered ceremonially on deck, the
crew being summoned to "witness punishment" and the prisoner being
brought forward by marines with fixed bayonets. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birching>

RESUME TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE DIALOG: "Why should you, in relation to what
things are mine and not yours, then dictate what ought to be on my mind?

Such rubbish as YOU CALL IT because of your abject ignorance which you
make despite the absolute command given under SECTION VIII of the
Letters Patent to be "obedient, aiding and assisting", can earn you a
criminal charge of TREASON and 25 years imprisonment (if I wish to
pursue that matter against you), as a contempt of your life and business towards the AUTONOMY OF WILL being the MATERIA PRIMA of the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES encapsulated within the LETTERS PATENT to the FEDERATION of
the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OF 1901.

Why did you celebrate Christmas with a lunch on this 14 DECEMBER, 2016
when are you given to such hypocrisy and depravity of being with no
claim that you can make of Jesus Christ as you are a hypocrite and a
godless liar?

Stick to croissants and coffee--but leave the things which are mine to
my concern."

DOLF: “Who was it who wrote those ignorant comments in relation to my attendance here yesterday?”

TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE: “I want you to leave my business now or I will
call the police.”

[Showed a contemptuous disdain by a backhanded flicking refuse away
gesture towards these documents as if it was sh@t]

DOLF (paraphrase): “That is fine by me.

Because whether it is yourself, POLLYANNAR BIG PICTURE PHOTOGRAPHER or
REDD CATT CAFE, I will neither keep the company with fascist whores nor
to transact any business with those who come here to this country so as
to show such disrespect for the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES of our COMMONWEALTH.

You cannot thereby claim any piety, specially Christian identity (but
not limited to), your house is now desolate and anyone who does business
with you will now similarly lose their prospect of eternity.”

CHORUS OF PATRONS @ TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE: “Out!”

DOLF: “Go back to where you came from."

DATE OF SERVICE @ 1345 HOURS ON 29 DECEMBER 2016 OF COMPLAINT AS TO
INFERRED RACIAL HATRED BY PUBLIC EXCORIATION DIRECTED AS ANTI-SEMITISM
(#509 - YAHAD as JEWISH / CHRISTIANS) AND AGAINST DUTCH HERITAGE AND
THEIR FORTHRIGHT MANNER OF SPEECH BEING IMPLICIT TO CULTURAL IDENTITY
AGAINST JINGOISM CAROL @ TRIPLE FFF (#666) CAFE: "In Australia, a lieutenant-governor is a standing appointment for a deputy governor of a
state, who acts in place of the governor if the governor is unable,
unavailable or unwilling to act.

In Victoria, there is a lieutenant-governor and an administrator. The
Chief Justice of Victoria is ex officio the administrator, unless he or
she is the lieutenant-governor, in which case, the next most senior
judge is the administrator. The lieutenant-governor takes on the responsibilities of the governor when that post is vacant or when the
governor is out of the State or unable to act. The administrator takes
on those duties if both the governor and lieutenant-governor are not
able to act for the above reasons.

The lieutenant-governor is appointed by the governor on the advice of
the Premier of Victoria. Appointment as lieutenant-governor of itself
confers no powers or functions. If there is no governor or if the
governor is unavailable to act for a substantial period, the lieutenant-governor assumes office as administrator and exercises all
the powers and functions of a governor. If expecting to be unavailable
for a short period only, the governor with the consent of the premier,
usually commissions the lieutenant-governor to act as deputy governor, performing some or all of the powers and functions of the governor.

Marilyn Warren, the CHIEF JUSTICE OF VICTORIA (ie. in 1934 the *CHIEF* *JUSTICE* had *FASCIST* *AFFILIATIONS*), is the current lieutenant-governor.

As of 28 MARCH 2014, the Commonwealth deputies of the Governor-General
are Dame MARIE BASHIR AD CVO and ALEX CHERNOV AC QC. Further deputies
are appointed to exercise narrow powers, such as convening executive
meetings, opening parliament and swearing in new politicians.

There is no lieutenant-governor.

State governors hold a dormant commission to act as Administrator of the Commonwealth should the governor-general die, resign, or be absent
overseas or on leave. By convention, the longest-serving state governor
acts as administrator.

Presently, the longest-serving state governor is ALEX CHERNOV, who has
been Governor of Victoria since 8 APRIL 2011. The second longest-serving
state governor is PAUL DE JERSEY, who has been Governor of Queensland
since 29 JULY 2014.

On 1 August 2015, PAUL DE JERSEY assumed the administration of the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia."

TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE @ 1213 HOURS: “You might like to visit the police station as we have reported you and I will take out an intervention
order against you if you persist in this manner.”

DOLF: “Since my actions and statements @ 0813 HOURS of this day have
been entirely in compliance with NATURE, LAW, ORDER and the JUSTICE of
this LAND as SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES which are defined by a Natural /
Common Law statement as to the existence of an egalitarian right and
that was in accord with such mathematical theoretical noumenon as
Intellectual Property of mine, and with specific regard to the computed CATEGORY OF UNDERSTANDING of #287 given as:

    #87 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 24 JUNE 2023 as [#1, #50, #1, #3, #20, #1, #10, #1] /

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)