THIS COURSE IS STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS FOR YOUR EYES ONLY!

Nothing in this course must be shared and regarded as legal advice. It is purely private opinion available for entertaining deeper philosophy learning. It is an overview of tactical info for those challenged by the legal system or licensing ‘authorities’

• There are parallels between interviewing patients and being interrogated
• There is a tendency for all of us to not listen and to talk too much
• In a court of law or during a medical tribunal we need confidence
• At the same time be humble and respectful and show humor
• Training in what to expect and how to react will give an optimal outcome
• This information is based upon prosecutor experience and natural law resources
• Recognising the principle and the particulars
• Using the power of questions and contra questions to gain control of the process

Always remember:

“When you know in your heart that you did good and no wrong, then you are in your power to accept any non-violent path that leads to your growth of awareness. You know what is the truth by the way it feels. If you are wise, you can not be exploited”

Accepting the presumption that authority is a myth, will help your path to higher awareness. Check out the next video based on the book: “The most dangerous superstition” by Larken Rose

There are basic rules in a court or tribunal theatre we can use

• We have to determine what the principle of the complaint or claim is
• The principle is called the wrong (-doing) that is claimed
• The alleged (use this word) wrong is mainly based upon trespass of property. In the medical field the property is health.
  Licensing boards or councils have limited jurisdiction. They have contracted you under their own ‘club’ rules. You can have their verdict reviewed in high court.
• In law there can only be a remedy when there is a wrong. An often used claim in medicine is the damage done to the reputation of the medical profession. This is a fiction where licencing authorities like to play. Totally unmeasurable. It just can not be seen as a principle of a case. Most probably we are preventing a lot of deaths by removing hospitals and stop medicine altogether (use this joke to break a too serious reputation argument)
• Recognising the principle here is the proof of wrong doing that the claimant has.  Anything else around this is particulars and not worth to go into.
• The claimant has the burden of proof, you do not have to proof anything and that is the principle for the next step
• Any question during cross examination can be countered with a contra question mainly coming back to ask the other side to come with proof. The reason for this technique is to prevent feeding the claiming party with more particulars (that could be used against you)
• A witness has a right to take the time he/she needs to answer and make notes
• Take a relaxed posture and write down the questions.
• Before answering take a deep breath and let them wait for at least 30 seconds. This creates a different power balance, if they complain explain that you need this technique to create peace in your heart
• They are more trained in creating leading questions and accusing questions (you say…) that you should recognise. For this study the next few videos:

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE GAME

Please practice this game at the dinner table after dinner. It is real fun.

Look like this:

State before hand: is it correct that I can take as long as I need to answer a question?
(Now for example I show how to exercise the art of questions)
If they say: within reason or something similar
You: take 30 seconds write down their BS and then say: please explain what you mean
They: more BS (what in law is called particulars)
You: pause, Is it not a rule of law that a witness has the right to take his time to consider his answer?
They: more BS
You: pause, deep breath:  is it not strange that I hear many particulars but never the principle I am bringing forward?
They: what do you mean with that statement?
You: pause deep breath, relax, and say: I never gave a statement (!!!) I simply asked a question. I humbly ask can you please answer my question?

They: more particulars, trying to lure you in the same trap by stating: so you are saying that we need to answer your questions while we are here to ask you questions…
You: I am NOT saying you are not allowed to ask questions. But are you now saying I am not allowed to ask for clarification?
They: we are here to question you on any particulars that we want
You: I humbly ask can you explain to me what is the principle of the wrong I have done?
They: the principle is…. AND THAT IS THE ONLY SUBJECT YOU MIGHT COMMUNICATE ABOUT BY EXACTLY REPEATING YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT. THEY WILL STILL CONTINUOUSLY GO INTO PARTICULARS THAT YOU CONTINUOUSLY WILL AVOID BY ASKING THE QUESTION:
You: what has this to do with the principle of doing the wrong that alledgedly created harm?
They: bla bla
You: Am I wrong in my thought that we are not coming to the core of the principle by diverting more and more in particulars?
They: bla bla
You: can you show me the proof of the harm done by I?
They: avoiding to answer this one by asking more particulars
You: sorry but is that an answer to my question?
They: blabbka
You: I still do not understand
They: what?
You: I still do not understand what your answer has to do with the principle what I am here for…

Etc etc

Please make up a list of possible contra questions you can come up with and just have one principle statement ready that you want to give them. Or not even that and give them simply nothing which in most cases works out better then giving anything. Repeat and repeat you do not understand.

This is the most powerful method in law.
The legal maffia use it often, by just not reacting.
Now it is your turn.
They have the burden of proof.
It is their cross in their theatre, not yours…

 If you are into the feeling that you do not yet want to dump the membership of this illusive club, then only sign agreements on conditional acceptance. Use the words sue juris and add your conditions. How to do that is in the below video.

YOU have the inalienable right to not be enslaved. This is just a time to test our tolerance to what level we want to accept authority to be able to live a life that is morally justifiable for ourselves. Many choose to stop contracting with the ‘luciferians’ to live in a parallel reality where they feel better and connected to the ‘source’. However exploring the dark forces will bring an opportunity to challenge your own rational and emotional resistance to change and perhaps trains us what to look for and what not to look for in a future better world that our hearts know is possible…