"Personage and Barratry". This is what the lawyers, bankers, and politicians have used to enslave you. It is a crime known as “personage”. By arbitrarily creating an Estate trust named after you and claiming to own this thing they created, they have falsely claimed to own you and your assets and to literally buy and sell “you” on stock exchanges, ship “you” out of ports, and tax “you” for doing things you’ve never done. After all, there is no law against enslaving an ESTATE trust, is there? Or arresting a slave? Or charging a tax on importing revenue. Hand in hand with personage comes “barratry” — the crime of knowingly bringing false claims into court. So what happens every day, when charges are brought against the ESTATES of “dead men” who are standing right in front of the judge and jury? Barratry — a crime that is appropriately named after the “Bar Association”. Look at the front page of any law suit that has been filed in the past seventy years and there you will have proof in your hand of both personage and barratry being committed against the individual people falsely named as “DEFENDANTS”. They are being deliberately confused with foreign estate trusts merely named after them and they are suffering the crimes of bothpersonage and barratry. When you appear in person you appear as part of the trust! when you state your name for the record YOU ARE CALMING TO BE THE TRUST! the other person oxford english definition is A MASK PRIMARILY WORN BY ACTORS ON THE STAGE! When you REGISTER to VOTE you VOLUNTEER to be REPRESENTED by members of parliament. There is an Act called the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983 whereby it states that a man is entitled to be registered as a voter amongst other important things. However in doing so that man then becomes a PERSON and a CITIZEN of the UNITED KINGDOM and is seen as an agent of the Crown/government. The UNITED KINGDOM is a corporation that operates out of Britain. Britain is the land mass and UNITED KINGDOM is a corporate body. Voting makes you a CITIZEN and EMPLOYEE of the corporate body called UNITED KINGDOM and all the policies known as ACTS and STATUTES applies to UK CITIZENS. Given that the UK is a corporation with a PERMANENT work force known as the Civil Service what on earth makes you think that any party has much of a say in which direction the COMPANY wishes to go? The parties are an illusion of choice. If there were real serious differences between leaders and they had a real say in which direction the UK COMPANY was headed each new party that got elected would spend some time undoing the policies of the previous lot...but they NEVER DO...The COMPANY keeps rolling on. Also lets say Arthur for arguments sake you vote Labour and the Tories get in. The Tories now have your full authority and consent via the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT and your act of VOTING to do as they please. No bomb ever landed in Syria with my consent or in my name. The above is what VOTING does. Now i will tell you what VOTING is (this may be extremely relevant to those individuals that might consider themselves Christians) A VOTE is a VOW and a VOW is a PLEDGE to a DIETY. A PLEDGE is a CONTRACT and a DIETY is a God. Voting then is a contract with another god. And this is against the commandments and teachings in the bible Exodus 20:3 and Leviticus 27:2 When you VOTE you ATTORN and to ATTORN is to transfer allegiance or homage to another lord WHICH IS WHY ITS AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS. So if you VOTE you ATTORNED and turned your back on God and pledged allegiance to another god. It's why they have an ATTORNEY GENERAL. VOTING also makes you a PERSON and the bible has something to say about that too I am not a "person" Tane Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Psalms 26:4 I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers.

Job 13:10 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Proverbs 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress

Psalms 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

Proverbs 24:23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.

Proverbs 28:19 He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.

Zephaniah 3:4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.

Proverbs 12:11 He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.

Ezekiel 27:13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.

Ephesians6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening:knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Lamentations4:16 The anger of the LORD hath divided them; he will no more regard them:they respected not the persons of the priests, they favoured not the elders.

Malachi 1:9 And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.

1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Samuel 22:22 And David said unto Abiathar, I knew it that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul: I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy father's house.

Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

2 Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Colossians 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

Jonah 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Deuteronomy 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Deuteronomy 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

—- Some worthy copy pasta from my journey in understanding common law (and GODs law)

It’s great to see that the site is being worked on but the last change to viewing images (after tapping the thumbnail) has been a complete pain in my arse.

The previous behavior for swiping on an expanded image would scroll the page, but now all it does is scroll the images in place.

It’s not a problem if the image height is small enough, but on really long images I cannot scroll the page without swiping from the very edge of the screen.

I haven’t touched html in years, but if I had to guess, I’d point to the img frames overflow as the culprit.

https://files.catbox.moe/nnvfqr.MOV

Title

I’m also open to suggestions for anything similar.

See title.

I would like to have some Ivermectin sitting around for preventative measures but the only place I find it online is on Amazon (in the form of a paste and advertised for animals) and sketchy generic “buy drugs online” sites.

Also, how long does it take before it expires? A year, 5?

The only one I can remember is “if you don’t vote for me you ain’t black”, but even that I can’t find a (unedited non msm/meme) version.

This is a follow up to this post here: https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkmRkJdq/i-have-an-opportunity-to-shatter/

Using the information you all provided, i was able to put this email together. Since i have until Friday to present my case, i figured I'd share the first draft with you all first.

Since I suck with articulating my points of view, there's more links than text. I hope to reverse that by Friday. Feel free to copy/paste/improve upon it and send it to your HR team. OSHA is what I used to get their attention.

My intent with this email is not to convince you one way or another, but to allow you to make an informed decision. I also understand that even if you agree with me, you may choose not to act upon it due to fear and liability concerns. (IE; someone gets sick and blame me, {INSERT_COMPANYNAME_HERE} would be liable if 'guidelines' were not enforced)

"Masks don't work as well as you think"

The following is a list of studies done in regards to wearing masks and a summary. I will have to jump through hoops to obtain the full paper, and can if necessary.

1. A study done in 1975 found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/

2. Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin micro spheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/7379387

3. Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.1810170306

4. In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

5. A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.” (in regards to Anaesthetists) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402

6. Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus, they are dispensable.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/11760479

7. Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn. http://www.advancesinpd.com/adv01/21Figueiredo.htm

8. Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.” (in reguards to open wounds) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20524498/

9. Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the

10. Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05200.x

11. Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2/full

12. Caroe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.” https://europepmc.org/article/med/25294675

13. Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.” https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2014/09030/Surgical_Attire_and_the_Operating_Room__Role_in.11.aspx

14. Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167

Note that these studies were done in medical (sterile) environments. Any mask that was worn was a brand-new mask. It wasn't picked up from a desk, or pulled out of a pocket, and like gloves, they were changed prior to every operation. They were never reused.

And wearing one doesnt even protect you, as 85% of the covid patients in this study always wore a mask. https://dossier.substack.com/p/cdc-85-of-covid-19-patients-report?r=6a3x3

It is however, a great way to make money by pushing fear. https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html

• "We were told you need 16 layers on your mask for it to offer 95per cent protection," Ms Taylor said. (in 2003)

"Ok, so the masks aren't necessary but it doesn't hurt to wear one"

This study is written by the very same Dr Fauci who currently works on the White House Covid-19 task force. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118 Full paper - https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-pdf/198/7/962/18055875/198-7-962.pdf https://www.bitchute.com/embed/GGRLIPWu44C9/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMwE9ZETH0

He did a study on the 1918 Spanish flu, and he concluded that:

Results: The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia. Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.

Conclusion: The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings. If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.

So most of the deaths were not a result of the Spanish flu. It was the result of 'secondary bacterial pneumonia'. Can prolonged periods of mask wearing cause 'secondary bacterial pneumonia'? What happens to the bacteria when it hits the mask? Does it stay there? Does it die? What kind of environment does bacteria thrive in

• Dark, moist, warm (body temp) Kind of sounds like the environment created inches away from both entry points (mouth and nose) of my respiratory system when a mask is worn. Did you know this? Does the public know this?

"Back to my personal concern regarding CO2"

Per osha's table of occupational exposure limits CO2 should not exceed 5000 parts per million (ppm) https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels/table-z-1

This website lists potential health effects of high concentration of CO2. https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Exposure_Limits.php

If you look at 7000 ppm over the course of weeks, you will see it can lead to acidosis. The footnote reads the following:

Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance. Nevertheless extensive research has documented health and performance impacts of exposure to carbon dioxide at various levels. - ACGIH exposure limit recommendations for Carbon Dioxide are as follows: CO2 TLV-TWA, 5,000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) CO2 TLV-STEL, 30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3) Quoting: A TLV-TWA of 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) and a TLV-STEL of 30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3) are recommended for occupational exposure to carbon dioxide. The recommended values are intended to minimize the potential for asphyxiation and undue metabolic stress. The TLV-STEL is based on the short term, high carbon dioxide exposure studies that produced increased pulmonary ventilation rates. Sufficient data were not available to recommend Skin, SEN, or carcinogenicity notations. [1]

- ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.

- NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.

- OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6% (1.4 absolute percentage points divided by 20.9% starting point = 0.06), the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.

- U.S. EPA CO2 carbon dioxide exposure: EPA identifies indoor air quality or IAQ as a top building health concern; studies report cognitive impairment in people working in indoor CO2 concentrations over 1,000 ppm in studies discussing SBS Sick Building Syndrome; some of these studies are provided by the U.S. EPA. A maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure is suggested. (Erdman 2002)

Now, these recommendations dont take masks into consideration. These are the regulatory limits to open spaces. What does wearing a mask do to the co2 levels in the air you breathe? Heres a video that demonstrates this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsOc3rbNw4s In this video, it took less than 1 minute to go from 'safe' to 'dangerous to your health' with all sorts of mask types. Even 1 minute is detrimental to your health and the basis for my refusal to wear one.

There are many more videos like this, but for $150, you can test this yourself. https://www.amazon.com/Quality-9999ppm-Digital-Temperature-Humidity/dp/B01966BZDY

"But people are dying"

40% of 'reported' deaths came from nursing homes in 5 states who thought it was a good idea to mix sick people with the elderly.

• California https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2021/02/19/gavin-newsoms-cuomostyle-nursing-home-scandal-n2585014
• Michigan https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/michigans-whitmer-may-face-charges-over-nursing-home-deaths/
• New York https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing-homes-covid-19/index.html
• New Jersey https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2021/03/05/phil-murphy-nj-covid-policies-nursing-homes-republicans/4594781001/
• Pennsylvania https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/02/23/gov-tom-wolf-investigation-nursing-home-death-count/ I say 'reported' because I believe this number is much higher than what they are telling us. As for the other 60%, your guess is as good as mine.

"oh the hypocrisy" The same people telling you to wear a mask arent wearing one. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article247269194.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53994209 https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/anthony-fauci-denies-hypocrisy-after-watching-game-without-mask/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/ny-dems-busted-at-packed-indoor-birthday-party-without-masks-heres-how-they-reacted-when-caught

At the end of the day, I don't take medical advice from politicians, journalists, celebrities or doctors who haven't practiced medicine in years.

I don't mean to go all patriotic on you, but I happen to know you served in the military. You took the same oath I took and I am fighting for your freedom of choice.