David Wyn Miller

[girlgye]

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6717

nuff said ere mates.

Of course let's discuss this in a rational manner.:rolleyes:

[relentless]

Could you summarize the info from the forum for us.

[christophera]

For the modifications of the fictional "human-intention-of-societal-fear-conformance" (aftermath in the lethal genetic memory taboo enforcement state) are with the modification-fictional-communications of the ailing-message board-state as the foreign-contract alienated to the guise of the free men. Messages may not be handled by the post master general icke.

[relentless]

(aftermath in the lethal genetic memory taboo enforcement state)

Discontinuence of evidence

[christophera]

Discontinuence of evidence

Don't be so sure of yourself. There is mass evidence that there is more to this than meets the eye.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo

genetic memory taboo enforcement state
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/Crusaders1.html
MODERN CRUSADERS

A new Crusade is on the lips of the Taliban. They have told us that their plan is to capture the "West," and the United States. They want to go back to the 7th century, when the conquering and converting was acted out after the dead of their prophet, Mohammad. The history of Islam was built on conquering nations so they could convert them.

Is it a coincidence that they waited 2,000 years to re-invent themselves. I guess no one will ever know.

Evidence of taboo for behavior origin.
Hallucinations
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/human122.jpg

antisocial
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/human123.jpg

[relentless]

Don't be so sure of yourself. There is mass evidence that there is more to this than meets the eye.

I was'nt referring to the subject matter.. Just commenting on the use of brackets within syntax.;)

[yozhik]

Reading this thread ... I feel like I've walked into another dimension ... :confused:

[christophera]

Reading this thread ... I feel like I've walked into another dimension ... :confused:

Well the OP kind of implied that they couldn't get past that factor, then the post following did the same, so I though I'd bring some use, perhaps to Millers linguistic strategy.

I do appreciate your post as making a relevant statement towards the information of the thread for the reason that if you did actually understand what I wrote, mimicking as best I could, Millers linguistic strategy (I don't know shit about grammer as probably many can tell), because I do know that the writing or reading can be conducted without using the left brain.

My point is that Millers linguistic act may utilize even more direct connections to instinctual patterns, recognitions etc. of the knowledge held in the unconscious mind. Accordingly if I said something taboo that is normally deflected by the left brain acting on unconscious compulsion, Millers linguistic technique could cause something to get through that might not have otherwise. hence, the "goofy thread" feeling.

David-Wyn: Miller will cause confusion just trying to read his stuff. I get the distinct impression, because of the successes he has had, I hear, that his uses have ancient accuracy and work with the roots of our uses of sound and sequence to create meanings which the original laws also were made with and had originating with Latin, Egyptian and Hebrew.

[deem]

Er! Half past two.:D

[christophera]

I was'nt referring to the subject matter.. Just commenting on the use of brackets within syntax.;)

Are there brackets? If so, I'm not a grammer expert.

I do have a government style manual and know what the brackets are for described there there.

[relentless]

Are there brackets? If so, I'm not a grammer expert.

I do have a government style manual and know what the brackets are for described there there.

I'm not sure what the second sentence meant?

For the modifications of the fictional "human-intention-of-societal-fear-conformance" (aftermath in the lethal genetic memory taboo enforcement state) are with the modification-fictional-communications of the ailing-message board-state as the foreign-contract alienated to the guise of the free men. Messages may not be handled by the post master general icke.

In the correct syntax sentence structure, developed by DWM, as you have attempted to iterate above, well done, one of the many rules states that anything inside brackets, (), is invisible therefore due to a break in that paragraph that evidence has been discontinued.

This is really intended for legal documents, and is the basis for disqualifying evidence.

[christophera]

I'm not sure what the second sentence meant?

For the modifications of the fictional "human-intention-of-societal-fear-conformance" (aftermath in the lethal genetic memory taboo enforcement state) are with the modification-fictional-communications of the ailing-message board-state as the foreign-contract alienated to the guise of the free men. Messages may not be handled by the post master general icke.

In the correct syntax sentence structure, developed by DWM, as you have attempted to iterate above, well done, one of the many rules states that anything inside brackets, (), is invisible therefore due to a break in that paragraph that evidence has been discontinued.

This is really intended for legal documents, and is the basis for disqualifying evidence.

Okay that's what I thought you referred to. Brackets and parentheses are different (page 137 in the style manual) and I can see that for technical legal purposes they could be said to be going the direction of brackets so would be avoided. I saw them in use on Millers page to include reference to something related and important, but a different subject.
What was curious is that the message board software thought I was yelling because I copied and pasted Millers work and altered it in the same basic form, and Miller uses all caps.

I mean it had to be there. What could describe "now" better,

(aftermath in the lethal genetic memory taboo enforcement state)

[tien an]

David-Wyn : Miller...is he a FOTL?

tian an.

[owltui]

David-Wyn : Miller...is he a FOTL?

tian an.

Apparently, according to some of his followers, the FOTL have acquired this grammatical way of presenting the real man's name from ..... you guessed it, : David-Wyn: Miller.

Could be something in that or not.... :confused:

[christophera]

Apparently, according to some of his followers, the FOTL have acquired this grammatical way of presenting the real man's name from ..... you guessed it, : David-Wyn: Miller.

Could be something in that or not.... :confused:

I'll tell you one thing for sure. The corporate system does not want signatures with that punctuation structure in their files. I've tried it, I think it is probably something that has veracity. David-Wyn: Miller explains it on his site somewhere I think.

[tien an]

Forgive me if I'm behind the times here...but has anyone noticed this in a google search on this guy?


http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=29

Whilst the article is quite derogatory...in the nicest possible way, of course...it sheds some light on what this guy thinks/knows.
Just see what he has to say about the 911 'attack' on the World Trade Center:



'Full Colon Miller'
"A Milwaukee conspiracist says punctuation such as the colon is the key to liberty. Others say David Wynn Miller is full of it.
By Mark Potok

:David-Wynn: Miller explains
McDONOUGH, Ga. -- The King of Hawaii is confused.

He's a genius, he says, with an IQ of 200. He's the one who discovered, back in 1998, "the mathematical interface in the truth that certifies all 5,000 languages, frontwards and backwards."

The Constitution is a "bankruptcy trust," he knows, and old Ben Franklin was a triple agent. Bill Clinton and every member of the Supreme Court are students of his, along with 100 million others, and no surprise either. After all, David Wynn Miller spent 59,000 hours studying such matters and if he can't give you the answers, no one can.

But the professorial conspiracist — who was coronated in 1996, he reports, after he "turned Hawaii into a verb" and held 25 seminars for the grateful natives — is feeling a bit perplexed. "Oh, I'm on, live?" he mutters after someone at the Homeland Security Expo held here last November yells something about the video camera that's rolling now. "Okay, er, I'll do an introduction here."

And so, setting sail into the linguistic fog, he begins.

"My name is David hyphen Wynn full colon Miller," the 53-year-old Milwaukean says, and the brows of his audience of 50 begin to furrow. This crowd of "Patriots" is used to conspiracy theories, but even at an event dominated by antigovernment ideology, Miller is tough going. "The reason I use a full colon and a hyphen in my name, the first full colon, which is full colon David, it means for the David hyphen Wynn. That's my given name, and it's also a noun, because it uses a prepositional phrase. ... Because I use prepositional phrases, through punctuation, which is classified as hieroglyphics, which makes me a life, l-i-f-e. Now, when you don't punctuate your name ... David is an adjective, Wynn is an adjective, Miller is a pronoun. Two adjectives are a condition of modification, opinion, presumption, which modifies the pronoun, pro means no on noun. So therefore, I'm not a fact. I'm a fiction."

Aha. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. If you don't punctuate your name correctly — and especially if it's written all in capitals, as devious court officials are wont to do — you're "dead." Yes, dead. An illusion.

"Neat concepts," as Miller points out.

It's not easy to follow, but Miller makes his way, via his finding that maritime law applies worldwide because "Earth is a vessel in a sea of space," to the "universal postal union" — the U.S. Postal Service, he seems to mean. Turns out it runs the world. Has since 1873. Ben Franklin was a postmaster. President Grant, too.

Miller makes some other detours, letting the crowd in on how MasterCard took over the U.S. economy at the stroke of midnight on Sept. 17, 1999. But soon he's getting to where he really wants to go — the World Trade Center.

When the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, the Center towers collapsed in six seconds, Miller says, not the 12 seconds it would have taken normal matter. Plus, all the concrete turned to dust. Having discovered the "mathematical interface that all steel is plastic" some years back, Miller understands perfectly what "the physics of plastic" is trying to tell him: A magnetic pulse brought down the towers.

What creates a magnetic pulse? C-4 plastic explosive. Who has C-4? The military. Who controls the military? The post office.

And there you have it. Postal authorities sneaked into the towers, replacing all chairs, tables and file cabinets with plastic furniture. Explosive plastic furniture. The steel in the building — well, that was plastic steel, and it was utterly destroyed by the C-4, which is only capable of destroying other plastic "polymers."

"That's what gave us certification that it was an inside job," Miller explains.

At the moment of collapse, $12 trillion was transferred electronically from the basement of the trade center to Singapore. "The World Trade Center was a bank robbery," Miller reveals, "very cleverly engineered."

The man's red hot now. After an hour and 22 minutes, he's coming to the nub of the conspiracy. But suddenly, someone's telling him his time's up. "They always do this to me," Miller complains. "They cut me off in the middle of a sentence."

Not to worry. The King of Hawaii tells his listeners that he'll finish up in the back, where he's selling his books and videos. That's what he did the last time this happened. They sorted it all out that time — in five hours and 15 minutes."


Worth looking into, I'd say...

tian an.

[christophera]

There is so little awareness of the true role oral histories play in the formation of societies, because they were all run with an oral history, on many levels, removed via the crusades, that a true appreciation for the comprehensive aspects Miller shares is very hard to gain. If it wasn't real it wouldn't work and it does work, for him.

I've seen his stuff work for another person. Not a big deal but it definitely worked, but it must be procedurally correct, they don't seem to entertain coming along after the fact.

Here is the name punctuation explanation from the link.

"My name is David hyphen Wynn full colon Miller," the 53-year-old Milwaukean says, and the brows of his audience of 50 begin to furrow. This crowd of "Patriots" is used to conspiracy theories, but even at an event dominated by antigovernment ideology, Miller is tough going. "The reason I use a full colon and a hyphen in my name, the first full colon, which is full colon David, it means for the David hyphen Wynn. That's my given name, and it's also a noun, because it uses a prepositional phrase. ... Because I use prepositional phrases, through punctuation, which is classified as hieroglyphics, which makes me a life, l-i-f-e. Now, when you don't punctuate your name ... David is an adjective, Wynn is an adjective, Miller is a pronoun. Two adjectives are a condition of modification, opinion, presumption, which modifies the pronoun, pro means no on noun. So therefore, I'm not a fact. I'm a fiction."

Aha. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. If you don't punctuate your name correctly — and especially if it's written all in capitals, as devious court officials are wont to do — you're "dead." Yes, dead. An illusion.

"Neat concepts," as Miller points out.

Consider that he has unconscious knowledge that he perfected by conscious study. That method of teching/learning, is proven to work in research of hypnosis.

Consider the system he interfaces with also operates with unconscious symbology and sequence as well as one that is consciously engaged called "due process", the 2 are side by side in our world. One is visible, a building, a uniform/office, written regulation, statuate et., BUT, the other is in the unconscious minds of the people in the offices.

Their minds are the ones that encounter you with your efforts to communicate. Suddenly we could possibly say that such punctuation could establish conditions that invoke a protocol mode for who is behind the badge or counter or on the bench. Seeing things done a certain way at a certain time with words and writing comprises the code invoking the protocol.

Perhaps we should all try using that punctuation exclusively just to see what happens?

[yozhik]

It's interesting; how he punctuates his name;

: David-Wynn:Miller

That first full colon is of most interest.
I have found other views that it is important to put "by:" before your autograph.
David-Sydney:Rideout expresses this in his video.

Now, if you do as David-Sydney suggest, it would look like;

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Again, we have that full colon preceding the appellation.
David-Wynn explains that the full colon preceding the appellation means "for".
Does this mean that preceding with "By:" actually means; "by and for"?
Which would make a lot of sense.

The explanation that David-Sydney:Rideout offers is that by placing "by:" prior to the autograph or the signature, it removes you from the liability ... so a CEO of a company can sign "By: (autograph)" on behalf of the company without assuming the liabilities of the company.

Whilst it makes sense, on considering David-Wynn's suggestion, it seems somewhat superficial.

If we accept that "by:" preceding the appellation means "by and for", does this not create a trust structure?
So the non-liability comes from being at arms length and protected by a construed trust, rather than just being some form of wording which removes liability ... this may go some way as to explaining HOW it removes the liability.

So ...

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Does this create a trust?
By and for?

[tien an]

It's interesting; how he punctuates his name;

: David-Wynn:Miller

That first full colon is of most interest.
I have found other views that it is important to put "by:" before your autograph.
David-Sydney:Rideout expresses this in his video.

Now, if you do as David-Sydney suggest, it would look like;

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Again, we have that full colon preceding the appellation.
David-Wynn explains that the full colon preceding the appellation means "for".
Does this mean that preceding with "By:" actually means; "by and for"?
Which would make a lot of sense.

The explanation that David-Sydney:Rideout offers is that by placing "by:" prior to the autograph or the signature, it removes you from the liability ... so a CEO of a company can sign "By: (autograph)" on behalf of the company without assuming the liabilities of the company.

Whilst it makes sense, on considering David-Wynn's suggestion, it seems somewhat superficial.

If we accept that "by:" preceding the appellation means "by and for", does this not create a trust structure?
So the non-liability comes from being at arms length and protected by a construed trust, rather than just being some form of wording which removes liability ... this may go some way as to explaining HOW it removes the liability.

So ...

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Does this create a trust?
By and for?

My first bold: I picked up on this too...

why superficial?

For me, it seems to get right to the heart of the matter...

(second bold:)...I suppose you're alluding to the trust?)
Or just 'trust' between two entities (contract).

As for getting to grips with his syntax...Punctuation and grammar are pretty deeply ingrained into this mind, I can tell you.
I know I'm doing myself a disservice by admitting this, but it's going to be a bit of a slog!

tian an.

[yozhik]

No, no ... not THE trust ... the trust structure, which is actually far more prevalent than we think.
Especially with the invisible and unknown trusts such as implied trusts and construed trusts :rolleyes:

But ... different subject from the thread, so don't want to be accused of hijacking.

[christophera]

No, no ... not THE trust ... the trust structure, which is actually far more prevalent than we think.
Especially with the invisible and unknown trusts such as implied trusts and construed trusts :rolleyes:

But ... different subject from the thread, so don't want to be accused of hijacking.

I don't think that the relation of liability or contract obligation from punctuation of a name is off topic at all. To the contrary, it could be a very functional avenue to understanding exactly what Miller is trying to invoke with the : before the name.

If it were "for and by:" I should think that it was individually claimed and liable, but for the exact quality shown in the name, not just any. If such were the case, then "for and as:" might have another meaning, so using just the : might be an assumption that "for and by:" is automatically implied.

[zhenshanren]

Does anyone have some background info to signatures/legality etc. in general?

[christophera]

Does anyone have some background info to signatures/legality etc. in general?

In some ways that is what the thread has turned into because what Miller does with grammer and the language is not understood well at all.

Perhaps some one ought to sign for something in a certain way, yet TBD, then violate the agreement to see what use comes from the alternative signature and punctuation.

EXAMPLE:
Lets see, ...... if there is any substance to my last post, I could sign a speeding ticket, "For and as:" NAME1 NAME2 NAME3, and I would be signing "For and as" a dead man, in a box made of 2 brackets, promising to appear.

[yozhik]

If it were "for and by:" I should think that it was individually claimed and liable, but for the exact quality shown in the name, not just any.

Asked for debate purposes only ... :)


Could by and for also give a trust structure?
If there is a "for", then this could appoint the beneficiary.
If there is a beneficiary, then a trust structure is a possible implication.

A trust structure gives some protection - as many accountants, tax experts and lawyers will advise today!!

[christophera]

Asked for debate purposes only ... :)


Could by and for also give a trust structure?
If there is a "for", then this could appoint the beneficiary.
If there is a beneficiary, then a trust structure is a possible implication.

A trust structure gives some protection - as many accountants, tax experts and lawyers will advise today!!

I see your point as the reference is very common there in constructive trusts. I've seen that common law forms had more variety than contemporary forms used with statuate law.

Do we have just 3 basic signature types with grammer and case?

1) Nom de Guerre-NAME1 NAME2 NAME3
2) Sovereign with designated application-(TBD): Name1-Name2: Name3
3) Standard, assumed person-Name1 Name2 Name3

What I'm suggesting is that 2) could go Nom de Guerre with a designated application. If indeed common law had the variety I suspect it may have.

[yozhik]

I've seen that common law forms had more variety than contemporary forms used with statuate law.


Hardly surprising, given that statute law applies only to fictions, which would require to have a specific format of its title.

Nomina sunt symbola rerum.
Names are the symbols of things.

Things/slaves/possessions/fictions do not require "variety" of title.
The status is relatively fixed and predetermined.
A sentient being, on the other hand, has far more flexibility of status and an ability to self determine with freewill and infinite consciousness.
To affix one style of symbol or to place boundaries of title would be an arbitrary and intentional restriction, and thus, by definition, a crime.

To intentionally restrict a sentient being is to bring harm, injury and loss.

For there to be differing formats in common law, is not without some logical possibilities.
Style of status, it could be argued, are nothing more than accessories for the body.
If I choose to wear black shoes instead of brown; I can.
If I choose to autograph my assumed appellation and imply consent has been given, instead of affixing my autograph while implicitly stating that I do so at arms length, then there will be an "accessory" for this purpose.

A thing, with a name, is not capable of such conscious thought and so can not accessorise.
Hence the options of title or symbol are restricted and limited.

[christophera]

Hardly surprising, given that statute law applies only to fictions, which would require to have a specific format of its title.

Nomina sunt symbola rerum.
Names are the symbols of things.

Things/slaves/possessions/fictions do not require "variety" of title.
The status is relatively fixed and predetermined.
A sentient being, on the other hand, has far more flexibility of status and an ability to self determine with freewill and infinite consciousness.
To affix one style of symbol or to place boundaries of title would be an arbitrary and intentional restriction, and thus, by definition, a crime.

To intentionally restrict a sentient being is to bring harm, injury and loss.

For there to be differing formats in common law, is not without some logical possibilities.
Style of status, it could be argued, are nothing more than accessories for the body.
If I choose to wear black shoes instead of brown; I can.
If I choose to autograph my assumed appellation and imply consent has been given, instead of affixing my autograph while implicitly stating that I do so at arms length, then there will be an "accessory" for this purpose.

A thing, with a name, is not capable of such conscious thought and so can not accessorise.
Hence the options of title or symbol are restricted and limited.

Okay, I think I get your points. Meaning that the apellations and punctuations or uses of case we speculate upon, could or might fit ancient common law form. Of course recognition, by the system(s) of that fact and their various meanings is a primary concern of Free men.

I shall try to define the different properties I see.

One makes you a sovereign life form. Another makes you dead, a fiction. Another makes you a fiction/person contracting with an authority and any liability the authority choose to apply to you is accepted by your signature. Others confirm an implied trust or a construct.

Is that about the extent of what is certain with this signature/punctuation/case issue?

[yozhik]

Okay, I think I get your points. Meaning that the apellations and punctuations or uses of case we speculate upon, could or might fit ancient common law form. Of course recognition, by the system(s) of that fact and their various meanings is a primary concern of Free men.

I shall try to define the different properties I see.

One makes you a sovereign life form. Another makes you dead, a fiction. Another makes you a fiction/person contracting with an authority and any liability the authority choose to apply to you is accepted by your signature. Others confirm an implied trust or a construct.

Is that about the extent of what is certain with this signature/punctuation/case issue?

I think we're going down the same path ... the punctuation changes with the status and meaning change.

Sentient being, legal fiction, consenting, non-consenting, trust, at arms length, etc, etc

[christophera]

I think we're going down the same path ... the punctuation changes with the status and meaning change.

Sentient being, legal fiction, consenting, non-consenting, trust, at arms length, etc, etc

Since there are no common law courts in the US, a court recognition that is accurate is not likely. However, when the signature is applied and examined, some feedback may be gained. That feedback will represent what that party thinks the courts will think, common law or not.

Perhaps that is the only test we can get now. Can we make a short list of signature forms that have a designated application that would benefit a Free man or provide them with the proper cloak? One for signing a traffic ticket. One for signing a contract. One for a release of liability, etc.

I've already suggested what I think would work with a ticket, what are your ideas?

[yozhik]

Since there are no common law courts in the US, a court recognition that is accurate is not likely. However, when the signature is applied and examined, some feedback may be gained. That feedback will represent what that party thinks the courts will think, common law or not.

Perhaps that is the only test we can get now. Can we make a short list of signature forms that have a designated application that would benefit a Free man or provide them with the proper cloak? One for signing a traffic ticket. One for signing a contract. One for a release of liability, etc.

I've already suggested what I think would work with a ticket, what are your ideas?

With the signing of a ticket, the ONLY thing to ensure happens is that you get the ORIGINAL ... not the COPY.

If you accept the copy, you have committed a crime; forgery.

The ticket is a bill of exchange.
You sign it to give it value.
When asked to sign, you must sign on the condition that YOU get the original.


That is the trick with tickets; nothing to do with the signature ... its who holds the note and who has committed forgery.

[christophera]

With the signing of a ticket, the ONLY thing to ensure happens is that you get the ORIGINAL ... not the COPY.

If you accept the copy, you have committed a crime; forgery.

The ticket is a bill of exchange.
You sign it to give it value.
When asked to sign, you must sign on the condition that YOU get the original.


That is the trick with tickets; nothing to do with the signature ... its who holds the note and who has committed forgery.

Hmmmm, I can see handcuffs. If we stick with HOW we sign our name separating us from their fiction, it should be okay. I have a hard time seeing a cop arresting someone because they insist on certain punctuation or letter case.

[relentless]

It's interesting; how he punctuates his name;

: David-Wynn:Miller

That first full colon is of most interest.
I have found other views that it is important to put "by:" before your autograph.
David-Sydney:Rideout expresses this in his video.

Now, if you do as David-Sydney suggest, it would look like;

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Again, we have that full colon preceding the appellation.
David-Wynn explains that the full colon preceding the appellation means "for".
Does this mean that preceding with "By:" actually means; "by and for"?
Which would make a lot of sense.

The explanation that David-Sydney:Rideout offers is that by placing "by:" prior to the autograph or the signature, it removes you from the liability ... so a CEO of a company can sign "By: (autograph)" on behalf of the company without assuming the liabilities of the company.

Whilst it makes sense, on considering David-Wynn's suggestion, it seems somewhat superficial.

If we accept that "by:" preceding the appellation means "by and for", does this not create a trust structure?
So the non-liability comes from being at arms length and protected by a construed trust, rather than just being some form of wording which removes liability ... this may go some way as to explaining HOW it removes the liability.

So ...

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Does this create a trust?
By and for?

By writing it this way is stating or representing a [pre]positional phrase = fact.

[thegoodnessisgood]

It's interesting; how he punctuates his name;

: David-Wynn:Miller

That first full colon is of most interest.
I have found other views that it is important to put "by:" before your autograph.
David-Sydney:Rideout expresses this in his video.

Now, if you do as David-Sydney suggest, it would look like;

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Again, we have that full colon preceding the appellation.
David-Wynn explains that the full colon preceding the appellation means "for".
Does this mean that preceding with "By:" actually means; "by and for"?
Which would make a lot of sense.

The explanation that David-Sydney:Rideout offers is that by placing "by:" prior to the autograph or the signature, it removes you from the liability ... so a CEO of a company can sign "By: (autograph)" on behalf of the company without assuming the liabilities of the company.

Whilst it makes sense, on considering David-Wynn's suggestion, it seems somewhat superficial.

If we accept that "by:" preceding the appellation means "by and for", does this not create a trust structure?
So the non-liability comes from being at arms length and protected by a construed trust, rather than just being some form of wording which removes liability ... this may go some way as to explaining HOW it removes the liability.

So ...

By: David-Wynn:Miller

Does this create a trust?
By and for?

No that is not the main point of the full colon. The full colon is actually a hyroglyphic prepositional phrase, which means it is like saying "FOR THE" or "BY THE". If you study his stuff, a prepositional phrase is what is required in order to make a noun, otherwise you are only presuming a noun.

For the house
By the house
Of the house
Of the man
For the man
For the people
By the people.

In every phrase above, the third word is a NOUN by cause of it's SYNTAX.

If I say "by house" or "by man" man becomes a verb, which is a fiction because there is no such thing.

[christophera]

No that is not the main point of the full colon. The full colon is actually a hyroglyphic prepositional phrase, which means it is like saying "FOR THE" or "BY THE". If you study his stuff, a prepositional phrase is what is required in order to make a noun, otherwise you are only presuming a noun.

For the house
By the house
Of the house
Of the man
For the man
For the people
By the people.

In every phrase above, the third word is a NOUN by cause of it's SYNTAX.

If I say "by house" or "by man" man becomes a verb, which is a fiction because there is no such thing.

Grammer has always made my head swim, that is why I've not been able to use Millers perspective much, but you've made your point well here. Thanks!

ON EDIT:
So what happens when a word is added and changed such as what yozhik suggested, "for and by:? Is the use of : automatically become any preposition which fits the context of the noun created?

Then my list of the last page would change a little.

1) Nom de Guerre NAME1 NAME2 NAME3
2) Non fiction with designated application-(TBD): Name1-Name2: Name3
3) Standard, assumed person/fiction Name1 Name2 Name3

[yozhik]

No that is not the main point of the full colon. The full colon is actually a hyroglyphic prepositional phrase, which means it is like saying "FOR THE" or "BY THE". If you study his stuff, a prepositional phrase is what is required in order to make a noun, otherwise you are only presuming a noun.

For the house
By the house
Of the house
Of the man
For the man
For the people
By the people.

In every phrase above, the third word is a NOUN by cause of it's SYNTAX.

If I say "by house" or "by man" man becomes a verb, which is a fiction because there is no such thing.

I will happily take the lead from your advanced knowledge! :)
I haveno knowledge on this matter and am merely trying to get my head around it, but alas, failing miserably.

May I ask a question?

If the initial full colon is to establish the noun, what is the second colon for?

i.e : David-Wynn:Miller

Does this serve the same function or a separate purpose?

[yozhik]

Hmmmm, I can see handcuffs. If we stick with HOW we sign our name separating us from their fiction, it should be okay. I have a hard time seeing a cop arresting someone because they insist on certain punctuation or letter case.

Not really ... regardless of how the ticket is signed, if you take possession of the COPY, the crime has been committed, if not rebutted.


Traffic tickets are "bills" pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act 16. (1)
signed by the officer demanding you pay within 30 days or show up at a later
date to pay and the second you take possession of the copy presented, you
are legally deemed to be in dishonour and are liable for the acceptance of a
forged "bill".

By neglecting to ask the officer for the original in order that you may settle,
you have in effect and in fact, by accepting a copy (forgery) admitted you owe
the "bill" as presented.

That's why you can not win in court…..you are deemed guilty by just showing
up to argue and fight.

You waved your right to dispute the bill using a notary within 72 hours of
accepting the copy (forgery).

Now they have you under legal contract.

Ever notice they always give you 30 plus days before you have to appear in court?
They have to by law, give you 30 plus days in order to dispute the bill.

So….40 days later you show up in court to fight and the judge asks you if you
have your copy of the ticket with you and you of course wave it under his
nose thereby admitting evidence to having accepted a forgery as the real
thing when, the judge is sitting there with the original….the only bill (original)
in dispute [that you refused to get your hands on by neglecting to demand it
or dispute the offer made by the cop] which is now in the judges hands and
he is the holder in due course.

YOUR ****ED!! AND YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF!!

The only document having full and absolute standing (recognition) in any court
is the "original blue ink signed legal instrument."

source (http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/credit-cards-banking-securities/19749-signature-bank-note.html)

[christophera]

Not really ... regardless of how the ticket is signed, if you take possession of the COPY, the crime has been committed, if not rebutted.

Hmmmmm, a true copy might not actually be a forgery,

forgery

An illegal modification or reproduction of an instrument, document, signature, or legal tender, or any other means of recording information. An item is also considered forged if it is claimed that it was made by someone who did not make it.

Technically, the original is but a shield for the copy with carbon paper or the pressure transfer. The pen point with your energy is still making the mark.

Then one still has to dispute the charges (if you managed to get the original) if the court refuses to recognize that you were forced to commit forgery (if that is what it is) to temporarily retain your freedom.

It seems that the legal position of the cop doing what he has done is not being addressed. The cop is actually conducting fraud because there is nobody complaining except for himself and the court is supporting it. No harm has been done and no one is complaining so there is no witness who is impartial and there is no crime.

The impropriety of the system is perhaps something better addressed by the Miller with his, QUANTUM-MATH-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX WITH THE FRONT-WARDS AND BACKWARDS-MEANINGS OF THESE POSITIONS OF THESE [PREPOSITION]=POSITION WITH THESE FACTS-AS-FACTS AND NOW-TIME-AS-NOW-TIME OF THESE SAME TERMS, DUTIES, MEANINGS, CAUSES WITH THE NOW-TIME. [SAME-MEANINGS FOR THE BRIDGE IS OVER THE RIVER. FOR THE RIVER IS UNDER THE BRIDGE. ABOVE-BELOW, UP-DOWN, IN-OUT, ON-OFF] by questioning the authority by which the cop pulls you over and by which the judge issues a warrent when you don't show or tries to fine you.

U.-N.-CONSTITUTION-SYNTAX

FOR THIS C.-S.-S.-C.-S.-L.-CONTRACT(UNITED)-NATIONS-CONSTITUTION OF THE FACTS ARE WITH THESE SYNTAX-CLAIMS BY THE PEOPLE’S-CO-OPERATION. :WORD-TERM: "UNITED" = UN= NO, ITE = CITIZEN, ED=PAST-TIME-VOID. FOR THE "NO-CITIZEN" OF THE FICTIONAL-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE NO-LIVE-LIFE-CERTIFICATE-WORLD-WIDE. :WORD-TERM: "UNION" = "UN"=NO, "ION"=CONTRACT. FOR THE "NO-CONTRACT" OF THE "NO-CITIZENS" ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE "THE(ADVERB) DECLARATION(VERB) OF(ADVERB) INDEPENDANCE(VERB)". = "DE"=NO "CLAR"=SPEAK, "AT"=LOCATION, "ION"=CONTRACT "OF"(ADVERB) "IN"=NO, "DE"=NO, "PEND"=WRITE, "ANCE"=CONTRACT.= "AILING"=CORRUPTION FROM THE BEGINNING.

Then the true act of the system-court is exposed with this statement.

FOR THE COLLUSION OF THE FACTS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE RAPE, FORCE, TORTURE, TRICK, PERJURY, LIES, THREATS, "STEALING-PROPERTY BEFORE THE FACTS", "OBSTRUCTION-PRESUMPTION-ASSUMPTION-MODIFICATION-GUILTY" BEFORE THE FACTS.

It is a rape. Gang rape.

Accordingly the authority of a living person properly asserting their legal status, joined with others of the same, should be able to create accountibility by exposing this fraudulent structure of coercion.

And, I think that what Miller has actually done is show how the veracity of our lives can be historically asserted in a way consistent with original language that has been usurped by collusive false forms of language and writing that cannot convey the veracity.

It seems to me that the strength of what he attempts to share is found through agreement and meaningful use of the original language. That, considering the unintelligible aspects of that language to us who have been collusively deprived of an education and conditioning with the language, will probably have to be limited to short phrases that we absolutely agree upon the meanings of that correctly define the fraud in the original language or its modern sembalence/manifestation.

[bsmurph83]

No that is not the main point of the full colon. The full colon is actually a hyroglyphic prepositional phrase, which means it is like saying "FOR THE" or "BY THE". If you study his stuff, a prepositional phrase is what is required in order to make a noun, otherwise you are only presuming a noun.

For the house
By the house
Of the house
Of the man
For the man
For the people
By the people.

In every phrase above, the third word is a NOUN by cause of it's SYNTAX.

If I say "by house" or "by man" man becomes a verb, which is a fiction because there is no such thing.

goodnessisgood, sorry if this has been asked but if this is miller's take on syntax, how did he reach this point? i.e., what are his sources?

i am also curious about the other colon preceding the family name, as per yozhik's query...

trying to get this straight in my mind:

"for the" in front of the word "people" makes "people" a noun, and "by:" preceding someone's name performs essentially the same function/makes it a pronoun rather than verb?? please correct where needed......

[relentless]

goodnessisgood, sorry if this has been asked but if this is miller's take on syntax, how did he reach this point? i.e., what are his sources?

i am also curious about the other colon preceding the family name, as per yozhik's query...

trying to get this straight in my mind:

"for the" in front of the word "people" makes "people" a noun, and "by:" preceding someone's name performs essentially the same function/makes it a pronoun rather than verb?? please correct where needed......


This is what I have learnt on the definition of the colon:



Your conclusion of the meaning of the colon (:) is near bang on. In fact it is a [pre]position and article, meaning by the or of the:



i.e.

:John-Andrew: Smith = this reads to be

By the John-Andrew of the Smith family



So if you finish your sentence with by the, then your name, you will not need the colon in front of your name, simple as that.



Cheers

[tien an]

OMFG....just when I thought I was getting a grip on things!

Confused.

tian an.

[christophera]

OMFG....just when I thought I was getting a grip on things!

Confused.

tian an.

I think that was the third time it's been defined here. This one is the long formal version. The colon is synonomous to "for the" which makes you real, or a noun, not a verb. Just proper context.

[bsmurph83]

cheers relentless!

[tien an]

I think that was the third time it's been defined here. This one is the long formal version. The colon is synonomous to "for the" which makes you real, or a noun, not a verb. Just proper context.

thanks for the encouragement, christophera. (you'd make a great teacher)

The colon, I understand (or thought I did). It's wading through the rest of it that made me wince.


"FOR THIS C.-S.-S.-C.-S.-L.-CONTRACT(UNITED)-NATIONS-CONSTITUTION OF THE FACTS ARE WITH THESE SYNTAX-CLAIMS BY THE PEOPLE’S-CO-OPERATION. :WORD-TERM: "UNITED" = UN= NO, ITE = CITIZEN, ED=PAST-TIME-VOID. FOR THE "NO-CITIZEN" OF THE FICTIONAL-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE NO-LIVE-LIFE-CERTIFICATE-WORLD-WIDE. :WORD-TERM: "UNION" = "UN"=NO, "ION"=CONTRACT. FOR THE "NO-CONTRACT" OF THE "NO-CITIZENS" ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE "THE(ADVERB) DECLARATION(VERB) OF(ADVERB) INDEPENDANCE(VERB)". = "DE"=NO "CLAR"=SPEAK, "AT"=LOCATION, "ION"=CONTRACT "OF"(ADVERB) "IN"=NO, "DE"=NO, "PEND"=WRITE, "ANCE"=CONTRACT.= "AILING"=CORRUPTION FROM THE BEGINNING. ".....for example.






tian an.

[christophera]

thanks for the encouragement, christophera. (you'd make a great teacher)

The colon, I understand (or thought I did). It's wading through the rest of it that made me wince.


"FOR THIS C.-S.-S.-C.-S.-L.-CONTRACT(UNITED)-NATIONS-CONSTITUTION OF THE FACTS ARE WITH THESE SYNTAX-CLAIMS BY THE PEOPLE’S-CO-OPERATION. :WORD-TERM: "UNITED" = UN= NO, ITE = CITIZEN, ED=PAST-TIME-VOID. FOR THE "NO-CITIZEN" OF THE FICTIONAL-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE NO-LIVE-LIFE-CERTIFICATE-WORLD-WIDE. :WORD-TERM: "UNION" = "UN"=NO, "ION"=CONTRACT. FOR THE "NO-CONTRACT" OF THE "NO-CITIZENS" ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE "THE(ADVERB) DECLARATION(VERB) OF(ADVERB) INDEPENDANCE(VERB)". = "DE"=NO "CLAR"=SPEAK, "AT"=LOCATION, "ION"=CONTRACT "OF"(ADVERB) "IN"=NO, "DE"=NO, "PEND"=WRITE, "ANCE"=CONTRACT.= "AILING"=CORRUPTION FROM THE BEGINNING. ".....for example.






tian an.

Completely understood and accepted. That stuff should almost be posted with disclaimers and warnings for thinking, feeling, human beings. The fact that it can be so disorienting says it has a deep veracity for us as humans.

I think Miller has uncovered a very serious corruption of the English language and we are fairly disabled from recovery, at least in any short term sense. His breakdown in Latin seems accurate.

I feel that we can use it now if we collectively agree on the meanings conveyed and them treat it like a proclamation or petition. We invest in a limited statement asserting our rights at a foundational level which has greater linguistic veracity than any of the statements made by authority trying to control us. They end up looking stupid, manipulative and acting without legal basis, if we do our part well.

[bsmurph83]

don't worry tien. it looks like word vomit to me too.

fuck it (for now at least...)

[rp_01]

:JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller to speak at Nexus Conference July 2010.

For further Information and News / Tours etc on :David-Wynn: Miller in Adverb / Verb please visit: www.DavidWynnMiller.com

[yozhik]

will they provide translators?

[thegoodnessisgood]

Hi all,

I studied this stuff a lot. Went to a bunch of seminars. Watched countless hours of his videos. Spent time with him personally. From what I can tell he's a lying piece of lunatic shite. Why? I could fill pages but don't have time.

Since my last post in this thread I've seen the light and woke the f up.

Stay away from miller and any nob loon who says it works. It does not.

The guy lies flat out. 100 million students in quantum? WHERE mofo??! Nowhere.

I paid for one of his lawsuits. Never came. Mr I never sleep or sweat 200 IQ claims he works for the rothschilds and is a high mason. So what is the purpose of masonry? He has no clue. It's to sacrifice human beings by the way. Mates with the rothchilds? Do we need or want that? Of course it's all completely tall stories.

Future humans travel back in time to protect him from countless assassinations.

He talks some conceptual truth, and when you HAVE been raped by the legal establishment, his talk about fraud rape and collusion is exactly right and so very attractive - he speaks the truth. He then proceeds to spin an incredible ball of bull around that pearl of truth almost like a paid agent of disinformation. Many say he's just that in line with the 'we will lead every revolution against us' motto. Perhaps it's true I don't know. All I know is that for a guy who is inspired by aliens and here to set us free with the truth he lies an awful incredible lot.

My take after being a believer, court experience WITH the man, countless documents seminars study sessions skype chats and video study : staythe f away and don't waste your time. It does not work you cannot claim with it. There is no quantum world court jurisdiction the guy is a CON man.
When you mix shite with water it's not drinkable. Whatever truth he has in there is so mixed up with turd it's bad. Stay away. I'm writing this for all the poor sods out there like me who for whatever desperate run in with the criminal establishment legalese monopoly would actually give it a go thinking it's worth a try. Don't. He's a con. A liar. A bullshitter of the most extraordinary level.

Hey. He's telling you in plain sight. David wynn FULL COLON miller.

FULL COLON IS ABOUT RIGHT.

[rumpole]

Wynn Miller is one of the most toxic practitioners of 'alternative law'. Many have tried to use his theories to their advantage. They have all failed (& some with disasterous consequences). He makes 'Lord' Ray StClair look like a choir boy.

[platform7]

This is an interesting thread and not just because of the topic!

No a warm returning hello to girlgye,yozhick and tien ann!

I have missed you guys and gals. :)

Oh and in case I go off thread to far I wish you all love and peace

By Platform of the 7 family :D