Many of the Epstein files are marred with redactions that should not be there. It’s possible the allegations in this note are not true and thus the name was redacted. It could also be that the redacted name married someone to big to fall. ABN
This beautiful building will be, when complete, the much anticipated White House Ballroom — The Greatest of its kind ever built! It is a rendering from the Treasury Building, directly across the street, and replaces the very small, dilapidated, and rebuilt many times, East Wing, with a magnificent New East Wing, consisting of a glorious Ballroom that has been asked for by Presidents for over 150 years. Being an identical height and scale, it is totally in keeping with our historic White House. This is the first rendering shown to the Public. If you notice, the North Wall is a replica of the North Facade of the White House, shown at the right hand side of the picture. This space will serve our Country well for, hopefully, Centuries into the future! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Unfixed ambiguities lead to errors in interpretation. The errors accumulate and snowball. All people have been raised in environments like that and continue to live in them.
This causes pain because our minds are capable of communicating unambiguously, but we don’t know how.
We are semiotic animals, beings that live in semiotic jungles.
Our pain and error-ridden communication makes us mean, simple, greedy, stupid, violent, selfish, crazy.
Communication errors, misinterpretations, cause ghosts to form in the mind. We need to imagine a role for ourselves and others, but since we experience so many errors, our imaginings are fundamentally wrong. They are like ghosts in our minds.
We are as ghosts speaking and listening to each other.
The Clintons are political animals; everything they do is with a political strategy at the forefront of their thinking. What Bill and Hillary needed was to provide an excuse for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to vote against holding them in contempt. That’s what Bill and Hillary have done.
In a somewhat opaque last-minute agreement to testify to the House about their involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, rules and limits still to be decided, Bill and Hillary Clinton have simply attempted to stop/stall the House from holding them in contempt.
There are only 2 possibilities, either Epstein is alive or Epstein was murdered.
We all know Epstein didn’t kill himself.
We also know Epstein was working for Israeli intelligence and alongside Jews within our own government to blackmail western politicians.
Given that background, let’s dig deeper into who helped him escape alive, Or who helped to take him out. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
Let’s start with the Body. Who viewed the body?
New York Chief medical examiner Barbara Sampson is the one that ruled it a “suicide.”
While her ancestry does not say directly that she is Jewish, one would say it is likely since she is now a VP at the Jewish founded and led Mount Sinai Health system. She also updated NY burial policies for a specific subset of Jews in 2014.
Assuming you think Epstein was murdered and Sampson is lying, you have to assume she is covering either Epsteins death or escape for some reason. Assuming she is not Jewish, one would think she is doing it for her career, (like the VP job at Mount Sinai), or she is Jewish and is protecting a Jewish spy.
This report — Brain oscillations reveal that our senses do not experience the world continuously — supports the core activity of FIML practice, which entails noticing the first instant(s) of the arising of an emotional sensation (that is typically tied to a much more involved “mistaken interpretation” within the brain). By interfering with the first instant(s) of arising, FIML practice forestalls the habitual wave of neurotic interpretation that normally follows. Instead, new information — better data obtained from the FIML partner — is used to replace the cue that led to the initial sensation, thus redefining that cue.
Professor Gregor Thut of the University of Glasgow, where the study was conducted, says of its results: “For perception, this means that despite experiencing the world as a continuum, we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots determined by the cycles of brain rhythms.”
I would further hypothesize that the same holds true for our “perceptions” of inner emotional states. In this context, recall the five skandhas of Buddhism — form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation (which is the first possible initiation point of a FIML query), which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness.
In Buddhist teachings, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of “discrete snapshots,” to use Thut’s words. In FIML practice, partners want to interfere with what has become a habitual “firing” of their five skandhas based on (neurotic) learned cues. FIML practice strives to prevent full-blown neurotic consciousness (the fifth skandha) from taking control of the mind by replacing the source of that consciousness with a more realistic interpretation of the neurotic cue. The cue corresponds to form in the five skandhas explanation while our emotional reaction to it begins with the second skandha, sensation. The more realistic interpretation of that cue is based on the true words of the partner.
The five skandhas can also help us understand how FIML is different from more or less normal psychological analysis. In normal, or traditional, analysis we use theories and schema to understand ourselves. In FIML we use a specific technique to interfere with habitual neurotic “firings” of the five skandhas. FIML partners are encouraged to theorize and speak about themselves in any way they like, and it is very helpful to do this, but the core FIML activity cannot be replaced by just theorizing or telling stories.
Your Honor, this Complaint seeks declaratory and equitable relief on the ground that the Edenic Covenant was structurally defective ab initio—lacking informed assent, lawful consideration, proportionate and intelligible penalties, and enforceable scope—and was therefore incapable of valid or equitable enforcement against the original parties or innocent successors.
IN THE COURT OF EQUITABLE REVIEW OF THE COMMON LAW OF REASON
MANKIND, by and through its first representatives, ADAM and EVE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COVENANT OF EDEN, by and through its sole author and imposer,
Defendant.
…
**COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, EQUITABLE RESCISSION, AND STRUCTURAL INVALIDATION OF COVENANT**
NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Mankind, by and through its first representatives, Adam and Eve, and for their Complaint against the Defendant, the Covenant of Eden, allege and state as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This action arises from the formation, imposition, and enforcement of an a priori covenant governing the conditions of human existence. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief from a covenant alleged to be structurally unsound, epistemically recursive, and defective at inception, and further alleged to have been imposed without consideration, without meaningful consent, and under materially incomplete disclosure of its operative penalties.
Plaintiffs neither affirm nor deny the authority of the covenant’s author per se, but instead place at issue the legal and moral soundness of the covenant’s architecture as imposed upon innocent agents incapable of informed assent. Nothing herein shall be construed as a surrender, waiver, or abandonment of any claim of possession, stewardship, or ownership of the planet Earth, nor as recognition that the Defendant, by virtue of the covenant or any prior interaction thereunder, holds lawful title to, or exclusive dominion over, the Earth. This Complaint addresses defects inherent in the covenant itself, independent of any subsequent inducement, temptation, or third-party interference.
This is very well-done and highly amusing. I dare say the Buddha, who was the world’s first well-known and still-known-about skeptic, would approve of this. ABN
American Buddhist Net 