Oil

Correspondent 17 March 2003 0 minutes read

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

Pithy Quote

Conclusionary law not based on now time jurisdiction under rules of evidence are void for one thing. Two, I’ll give you a little secret. Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract. If you’re arguing a condition, a negative condition which can’t be proved under a seal which says syntax would be used in its correct format then the technology of writing will be syntaxed accordingly. The words will be identified for their true syntax and the value of that word will be brought to this court so if you have a rule our syntax can tell you exactly what it means frontwards and backwards because the order of operations of syntax are one and the same planet- wide in all five thousand languages, just like as a track multiplying and dividing for the operations of numbers. It is universal communication issues. Closure has to be on the table here for everything under maritime law of commerce because a piece of paper is a vessel in a sea of space and vessels must give closure for their movement between point A and point B and I’m a past master and as a plenipotentiary judge of 75,000 hours of training and 30 years I know how to dissect all this. There hasn’t been anything put in front of me in 30 years that I haven’t been able to dissect to its syntax.