Depth of deception in the court system and the word consent - 'plz' learn this
Depth of deception in the court system and the word consent - 'plz' learn this
Legal system trickery and deceit disclosures.
Dr. Nagase’s findings in law can be of extraordinary value to everyone.
Dr. Daniel Nagase backstory
Dr. Nagase was an emergency room doctor in Canada until he challenged mainstream media’s covid narrative. He resigned his medical license in B. C. and still faces a disciplinary hearing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons there.
In Alberta where Dr. Nagase also worked, the College of Physicians of Alberta
forbid him from writing mask or vaccine exemption letters, prescribing anti-parasitic medication ivermectin and from treating covid-19 patients.
Unable to practice medicine Dr. Nagase began to study law. Video paraphrased.
Disclosure of court room deceit and trickery
Aug 09.23
03:35 mins People in the freedom movement believe we can bring justice to the past 3 years of unjust lockdowns, medical experimentation, lies. First, we need to know how to avert being trapped.
Dangers of assumptions and presumptions
The words assumption and presumption actually mean ‘imagination’. If what is imagined is correct it is true, if it is incorrect it is a lie. However when a judge or court makes an assumption or presumption they do not always tell you. The entire time a judge is sitting at the bench flipping papers and appears to be doing nothing, that judge is making assumptions and presumptions about you if and when you stand in a court room. You have no idea if the judge’s assumptions and presumptions are true b/c the judge does not tell you what he/she is imagining about you. The judge makes assumptions and presumptions based on the way you look, the way you talk, whether you are an officer of the court, a public health agency member, or law enforcement associated person.
12 key presumptions of court
Avoid the trap of believing there are only 12 presumptions of court found on internet b/c there are others. https://courtvictim.com/the-twelve-presumptions-of-court/
A dangerous, simple assumption
Why is it that law enforcement officers can lie under oath and no one charges them with perjury?
07:05 mins Here’s why! The trick is in the Oath … “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing [long pause] but the truth so help me God.” Why the pause b/c when we walk into a court room we assume when we say “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God” we are saying the same Oath as a law enforcement officer who says the exact same words.
However in the English language you cannot see punctuation marks. So, while the law enforcement officer, or health officer, or public health nurse is testifying and swearing an Oath, what that judge assumes and ‘imagines’ in his/her mind is that when that public health nurse says “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing” the judge assumes there is a period after the word nothing. What the law enforcement officer, public health agent just said is that they swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing. Nothing is no thing. No thing is something that never happened otherwise known as a lie.
Judges are imagining punctuation marks in every single thing said in the court room, and they are changing the meaning of everything said in a court room using punctuation marks. Judges assume and presume w/out telling you. That’s why officers can lie in court w/out getting charged with perjury b/c of an imaginary punctuation mark. That’s how tricky the legal system is.
Before you step into a court room, your mind must be 100% present. You have to be clear. You have to listen to everything the judge says and be aware of anything the judge might be ‘imagining’. Deception is built into the very language of the court system.
Dictionaries: Wanted dead or alive?
09:55 mins What dictionary should people use before entering words into a court system? Definitions of words change over time, evidenced by new editions of a dictionary with updated definitions of words. A bureaucracy built on words, a legal system built on words, a government built on words but what happens when the meaning of words change every 2-5 years with new editions? It means bureaucracies, legal systems, governments, are built on unstable foundations b/c words keep changing their meaning.
So, how does a government create bureaucracies that are somewhat stable? They have to have a dictionary with words that ‘never’ change their meaning. What is that dictionary? What is the actual meaning of English words used to build city halls, court systems, legal systems and governments? The dictionary that has the true meaning of words and does not change every 2-5 years is called Blacks Law.
Black’s law dictionary
Why is it called Black’s Law? Do dead people move? No. In Masonic symbolism black signifies death and white signifies life. So, living things move. The Oxford dictionary is living English b/c the meaning of words change over time. That’s a sign of life … movement.
Black means dead. Black’s law dictionary is the dictionary of dead definitions that don’t move, never change over time b/c they are dead. Before you walk into a court room, look up every word in Black’s law dictionary that you plan to use so you know what you are saying when you’re battling a judge wearing a ‘black’ robe.
Black’s Law dictionary
UNALIENABLE: Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
https://heimatundrecht.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/Black%27sLaw4th.pdf
Consent is a concurrence of wills
14:00 mins Another point of trickery is the word consent. If you look up the word consent in Black’s law dictionary it says ‘consent is a concurrence of wills’. Con in Latin means against, currence is like current, its a flow. So, consent actually means there is a barrier against flow. When is there no current, no flow? When wills are equal.
A concurrence of wills means your will is equal to the doctor’s will when you’re giving consent. And when both wills are equal they are in equality, in equity. Any decision made based on equal standings and equal wills is a ‘just’ decision b/c it’s made in equality. There is a concurrence of wills.
The danger in ‘I do not consent’
What Dr. Nagase saw circulated widely on social media and freedom channels is a trick. It said whenever you encounter an agent of the crown such as police, a health agent, a public health nurse, or social worker, if they try to do something to you that you do not want, you are supposed to tell them “I do not consent.”
If you don’t know the Black’s law dictionary definition of consent is concurrence of wills, you just said to that law enforcement officer or agent of the crown social worker, “I am stating there is no equality of wills.” Once you state there is no equality of wills, what does that agent of the crown do? They assume their will is greater. So, the social worker takes your child assuming their will is greater b/c you just told them “Our wills are unequal.” The police officer will say “Yes, he agreed to be thrown in jail b/c he said “I do not consent” and I assumed my will was greater b/c the victim stated our wills are not equal.”
Reject the will of agents of the crown
If an agent of the crown tries to impose his/her will on you to do something you perceive is wrong like harm your child, coerce you to take an m-RNA jab, throw you in jail you have to reject their will.
Before ever saying “I do not consent” state clearly and firmly that your will is greater, and that you reject the will of a lesser person who swears an Oath to a lesser being.
To be engraved on our eyelids
“My will is greater under God. I do not consent to your will as someone who swears an Oath to something lesser than the Highest Authority in the Universe, which is a lesser will than mine.”
https://rumble.com/v36bjqe-the-depths-of-deception-dr.-daniel-nagase.html
NCI testimony Dr. Daniel Nagase May 19, 2023
Dr. Nagase starts at 4 hr 29 mins.
4 hr 29 mins to 4 hr 40 mins Dr. Nagase testifies he was investigated for successfully treating 3 extremely ill elderly patients with Ivermectin, etc. This led to restrictions on his medical license and $ penalties that ultimately deprived him of his ability to work.
4 hr 40 mins to 5 hour 02 mins Dr. Nagase’s ‘chilling’ testimony provides evidence of criminality in hospitals that led to homicidal death of 2 patients he was familiar with.
Summary
Nagase replied to a commissioner’s question about informed consent and medical ethics.
“There's no such thing as medical ethics. There's just ethics based on morality, which is based on reason, which is based on humanity,” he said.
“A thug on the streets who said, ‘Take this cocaine, or I'll shoot you,’ that's basically what medical doctors have been doing here in Canada in the public health system, getting paid for it with the mRNA injections. Let's call it for what it is, an actual crime — not an informed consent violation, an actual crime.”
https://rumble.com/v2ood6q-national-citizens-inquiry-ottawa-day-3.html
Reassurance and self-empowerment
Let’s help others self empower and avert legal deceit and trickery by sharing Dr. Nagase’s findings widely. TY!
Thank you for reading Our Greater Destiny Blog!
Subscribe for free to inform and reassure others. TY!
Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen A Agostino
Archive - Our Greater Destiny Blog
lawont/nagase