Then at some point, after using those tactics for smaller things, their confidence should be at a level where they can successfully use it on a case with a "heavy downside". I would like to see a case where that has happened. Look, I'm not the one making claims that it works. People who buy into this stuff are the ones making such claims. When it's pointed out that people using those tactics lose, they say that the losers weren't doing it right. When asked for an example of when it was done right, they can't provide an example. Basically all they can do is argue that these tactics SHOULD work, usually by attempting to redefine words or by misinterpreting some legal issue. I'm not interested in any of that. I want to see an actual case where it HAS worked. Just one single solitary little case where these tactics have worked as claimed.

It must have been exciting. I had heard about "QANON" (yes, I know only msm calls it that, but that's how I first heard about it 🙂) back around 2018, but I didn't follow politics then.

Now that I've grown up enough to care I have alot of time to make up for.

Thank you! I've never seen that info before.

Okey dokey

In a court case? You want me to define for you what a win is in a court case?

Ok, let's see. We'll assume the person using Sovereign tactics is a defendant. So if they plead not guilty of whatever they're charged with, and their use of Sovereign whatever results in the court finding them not guilty, that's a win.

Could you give me the name of a case where someone using the tactics you've described have won their case because of them?

I know what you mean! Apparently they think there is some sort of magic phrasing that if you just say something that sounds sort of legal, there's a loophole that the courts have to give you to get out of trouble. It's just stupid.

You'd think that they would catch on when everyone using this stuff loses their case. Case after case, year after year with none of this silliness ever working like they want it too.

Why is it that every fringe dweller on the outskirts of civilization want to dump their issues onto Q? Like this is the dumpyard where everything outside mainstream sheeple beliefs go to die.

Doesn't David Icke have a forum for these people?

I've never seen or heard of a case that anyone won using this Sovereign Citizen stuff. It's legal-ish sounding gibberish. And why is it that every case seems to be someone trying to get out of a parking or speeding ticket or not paying their child support.

What do you think Q meant when he said "Darnkess" instead of "Darkness"? With anyone else it would just be called a typo. But Q said something like they didn't make typos. Do you think it means anything?

I looked back at what I thought the plan was originally and compared that to what actually happened. So I'm going to continue the pattern as it has gone and not as I thought or hoped it would.

So maybe I'll be ahead of the curve on this. Now remember this is not what I WANT to happen but what I think will happen based on how things have gone.

So I'm going to say that the plan is that President Trump loses or settles the cases against him. He'll most likely just be fined. That won't break him, he's a billionaire. I'm sure someone will be able to come up with why it had to be that way. Probably to show how corrupt the system is.

And then the democrats will cheat again on 2024. They got away with it twice now, and not much has changed. So Biden will "win". But he's old and senile so they'll fake some health thing with him and have Harris come in to take over. She's not fit to run a lawnmower much less a nation.

So she will run the country straight into the ground. Don't forget we're supposed to have our money system collapse. There is no time to have the system collapse and rebuild it before 2024 election. And we don't want President Trump in office when the country is suffering an economic collapse. Because everyone will blame him for it.

So after Harris has run the country in the ground and Q and the team get a plan to get a gold standard back that's when President Trump will come in and save the day. By then everyone will see what a bad choice the democrats are and will understand what Q has been trying to tell people.

So that's what I think will happen. I think no matter what happens, God wins in the end. That is what matters the most.

When Trump gets re-elected, he should put some urgency into getting that wall completed. That is just a mess down there.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.

🙂🌹

I've lasted years here. 🙂

You do see where it says "The Big Catch-up aims to increase measles, diphtheria, polio, and yellow fever vaccination in 20 countries. The U.S. isn't one of those countries." Right?

So why are you trying to get Americans angry/scared that she's targeting their kids?

This same topic was covered a few days ago as well by someone else. Why make another post on it?

https://greatawakening.win/p/16b64HG7w0/chelsea-clinton-its-time-to-forc/

People have been saying we're about to have a market collapse since 2021. Eventually they'll be right, I suppose... But I'm tired of stressing over it. All my fucks have been used up.

So the State Department is in control of the military? Instead of Trump.

I'm not the confused one here. You made a claim that was simply not true.

Do you really not understand the difference between a court making a ruling on a case and someone suing for FOIA documents?

When a court makes a ruling, they look at evidence from both sides, deliberate, and either a judge or jury makes a decision on it.

That is NOT what the case from ICANN is. That was someone suing for info from the FOIA. That's it. All that was, was the court telling the pharmaceutical company they had to provide the information asked for to ICANN.

It was NOT the court making a judgement as to if vaccine companies had done any tests or if vaccines were safe or effective.

I'm gobsmacked that I have to explain the difference here. Do you really not understand this?

My intention is not to convince anyone that vaccines are safe or effective.

I don't believe that vaccines are safe or effective.

But that doesn't mean that what you claimed was true. It's things like what you did that makes it harder to convince normies. You were just making things up, or you were seriously misunderstanding what you were reading.

You should get out of the mindset that if anyone disagrees with you on anything that they're completely against everything you say.

So, clear your mind of any preconceived notions, go back to the beginning of this conversation, and actually READ what I was saying. I was extraordinarily clear on my points.

Hmmm. 🤨

It's not just money. You know that, right? It's also a shit ton of equipment. Including things like tanks, that you can see there. And some of our service people are going over there to help train them.

So what exactly is Trump doing with the military then? Is this Schrodingers military? Where he both does and does not have control of the military at the same time?

I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal to everything you say here, (of which about 95% is off topic)so I'll just stick to the basics again:

I am ONLY interested in the claim you made that a court ruled that vaccines haven't been tested for safety or accuracy in 30 years. I was very excited to see this claim because I thought it would be excellent to use when talking to normies about vaccines. Imagine my disappointment when the evidence you provided didn't show that.

1. It wasn't a ruling from a court case. It was a FOIA document. Not anywhere near the same thing.

2. It is possible to test vaccines for safety and efficacy without providing those reports to Congress. The pharmaceutical companies will just show the studies they did internally. You can go to PMID and come up with hundreds of such studies in less than a minute.

I could read a book assigned by a teacher and NOT turn in the book report she wanted. It doesn't mean I didn't read the book, though. This is a very basic concept, and I really can't simplify it more than that.

So, I'm not sure if you're not capable of understanding my points here or if you understood all along that you didn't have evidence of what you claimed and wanted to pretend. Either way, there's really no need to go around in circles here.