Brackets use: the words describing

Closely related to self-defense, this Board focuses in other aspects such as Communications, and Financial.
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Brackets use: the words describing

Post by Wizlawz » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:10 am

i am looking for where i found what and how Brackets are used, i seem to have lost my bookmarked page.

i am asking this here because of Security: Communications.

i know of them as interpolated and spurious matter within them, but i know there are other words used, it is these words i need to know...again.

thank you in advance.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by notmartha » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:55 am

Maybe this?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEM ... 008-10.htm

Brackets
Brackets, in pairs, are used--

8.19. In transcripts, congressional hearings, the Congressional Record, testimony in courtwork, etc., to enclose interpolations that are not specifically a part of the original quotation, such as a correction, explanation, omission, editorial comment, or a caution that an error is reproduced literally.

8.20. In bills, contracts, laws, etc., to indicate matter that is to be omitted.

8.21. In mathematics, to denote that enclosed matter is to be treated as a unit.

8.22. When matter in brackets makes more than one paragraph, start each paragraph with a bracket and place the closing bracket at end of last paragraph.
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by Wizlawz » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:51 am

no, but thanks for that info.

one of the other words used to describe what brackets are is extraneous, which is the other?

i know there is a definition on this site, i just do not seem to remember its' loction.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by editor » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:09 am

Don't you just hate that? When a word is on the tip of your tongue, but you can't quite get it.

From this link: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/boh3.shtml

Comes this quote:
Next, is the use of parenthesis, brackets, curly braces, and boxes. All information contained therein is classed as; "extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter, with no force and effect in law."26 Therefore, never 'interpolate' any statements in the abatement.
Is this what you're looking for?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by Wizlawz » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:48 pm

editor wrote:Don't you just hate that? When a word is on the tip of your tongue, but you can't quite get it.

From this link: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/boh3.shtml

Comes this quote:
Next, is the use of parenthesis, brackets, curly braces, and boxes. All information contained therein is classed as; "extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter, with no force and effect in law."26 Therefore, never 'interpolate' any statements in the abatement.
Is this what you're looking for?
aye that would be it. thank you very much.

my next question on this is what do you do when they use what is inside the brackets and transfer it to their records? IE: to their computer and etc, when in fact according to the symbols there is nothing to be transferred?

have they now falsified records? how does one now protect against that? do you take them to court? and how if so?
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by editor » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:42 am

my next question on this is what do you do when they use what is inside the brackets and transfer it to their records? IE: to their computer and etc, when in fact according to the symbols there is nothing to be transferred?

have they now falsified records? how does one now protect against that? do you take them to court? and how if so?
I think the answer depends on the circumstances.

What are "they" using the records for? Have they caused you any actual, actionable damage? If not, then you would have no grounds to sue.

Here's an example. Let's say you get your mail at general delivery. You want to send someone a letter, and you put a return mailing address on the envelope, like this:

John Doe
general delivery
MyCity, MyState

After you've done this for awhile, you learn that somewhere along the line the Post Office is appending a ZIP code to your return mailing address, especially for cases in which the letter gets returned to you (for whatever reason). You wish they wouldn't, but does this cause you a damage? At general delivery, you have the choice to claim the letter or not, and as we've already discussed elsewhere in this Forum, I don't believe that accepting a letter at general delivery which contains a ZIP code on it will prejudice you simply because you accepted a letter with a ZIP code. If you want it, accept it. If you don't want it, don't accept it.

Later, in self defense, you start styling your return address like this:

John Doe
general delivery
MyCity, MyState [near: MyZIP]

You've found that since the letter has a ZIP code on it, the Post Office doesn't append one any more, and since it's in brackets you don't feel prejudiced. This workaround is much simpler than spending your days in court.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by Wizlawz » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:25 pm

ye i know of the zipcode.

i speak of when they want a signature and ss # and any other info i want "not there".

i bracket everything that i do not want "on record".

but they always transfer it to their records anyway.

as for actionable damage, by using the brackets i was under the impression of it being non existant in the brackets as to privacy.
in other words with their own eyes they see me do this but as i was thinking i understood that according to the paperwork it was not there at all but they use their own judgement and not what their office dictates ?, in which i thought they were not suppose to use their own judgement and must follow the letter of their office.

and then they accept what is not there willingly.


for example:
they say you signed this or that and i say no i did not there is no signature there, i did not sign anything.

another example:

we know that whatever we put a signature to even though we have spelled correctly in correct christian upper and lower case appelations that it will be transferred and changed to all capital letters and so again we use brackets saying no we do not agree to this so here is something for your eyes but the paper work and your office say different.

according to the use of brackets there is nothing there and nothing is accepted and then they manifest something out of nothing
====================================

i know i am saying this all wrong so please bear with me if you know of what i think i speak.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by editor » Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:41 pm

I think I know what you're saying. I was just pointing out that it is pointless to sue someone unless you can quantify actual substantive damages. A plaintiff in a lawsuit must have both a right of action, and a cause of action. Without damages, you have no cause of action.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by Wizlawz » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:54 am

ahhh ok, i must not be comprehending then because i would not sue for $$$$ but rather to have the info they saw fit to put into their records that was not there in the first place according to the use of brackets stricken from their records, but i am not sure then if that is where a non-statutory abatement would come in as well.

i was thinking it was a way to not use the non-statutory abatement process and just by the meaning of the use of brackets.

i was also thinking yes there would be damages as what is not there according to the use of brackets was in fact used without regard to what was placed as extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter; in which i am not sure of any monetary value only that the info not be used and removed as there is no info there.

and if i were to decide to settle it / make it known in court and have it corrected as in removed from their records, how would one go about it, as i was once told that the judge does indeed have a book at his or her office that has all the symbols and their meanings /definitions as was told to me when you could call the Christian Jural Society in California.

how does one get the judge to open this book and agree to the removal of information that should never have been used in the first place?

is there some kind of court procedure on this of the use of the brackets alone? Then i could show them the Law on it IF there is one, and i could just use that as a first line of defense / security without the non-statutory abatemnt process.

the reason i am looking to not use the abatement process as a primary but use the brackets as primary is because i have asked questions about public notice boards and where to place public notices, the answers i get are if there is a board the one(s) who is in charge of this board decides what gets posted or not, and i can not just post anywhere i want.

so to me the use of brackets is my primary first line of defense and security, but is it to no avail? why bother with brackets then.

i need some education upon this, could you point me in the right direction specifically please?


== sorry for any typos==
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Post by editor » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:39 am

You use the brackets to protect yourself. Because it is the words from your own mouth, and the written words to which you attach your signature, that determines your lawful character.

The contents of someone else's records, whether or not those records are accurate, does not in and of itself cause you a damage. True, an inaccurate record may create a situation in which you are more likely to be damaged, but until and unless a damage actually occurs, you have no cause of action.

This forum, for example operates on a database, which keeps a list of registered users. For each user, certain bits of information are kept, such as an encrypted version of his password, his email address, the date he registered, the articles he has posted, and other bits. There is a data-field available for "comment", available only to moderators. I use this field to label as "spammer" certain users who sign on and try to spam this board with advertisements.

That's all I use that field for. But suppose I used it for other things. Maybe I think some users are "smart", while others are "stupid", and I decide to label them that way? Some may be "boring", while others are "interesting". I don't do this, but suppose I did? And then one day you find out about it somehow, and decide you don't like the label I give you. You want to sue me and make me change it. Do you have cause?

You would have to prove that my having labeled you in such a manner caused you a damage. It would not even be enough to prove that I somehow treated you differently from other users, unless you could demonstrate an actual damage, prove that the damage was caused exclusively or predominantly by my records, AND that there is a strong likelihood you would be damaged again if my record was not changed.

The key here is that it is my record. Not yours. Mine.

Now you're thinking, this is all well and good except that in the case of government records, those are public records paid for by tax dollars. As such you should be able to get them changed by going through proper administrative process.

In the case of such government records, you may be right. That is, in fact, the kind of idea upon which The Lawful Path was founded-- the discovery, reporting, and use of such things. This forum is a clearinghouse for ideas and procedures and I encourage this type of discussion.

I also want to point out that the "government" is no longer public. We are a conquered people, ultimately under the control of a private criminal syndicate which is posing as a lawful government. This syndicate maintains, to a varying degree, the illusion of lawful public government. It relies on the skillful manipulation of public opinion to control much larger numbers than could otherwise be controlled with guns. Modern government generally behaves lawfully only to the extent to which the people hold them accountable. The bounds of this extent has a name-- it's called "Public Policy". To this end, you could say we are really conquered by our own ignorance, greed, sloth, and above all, apathy.

This is why I continue to maintain The Lawful Path. As more people are educated about lawful principles, I hope to see the scales of Public Policy tilt toward lawful process.

Until then, "they" will come forward with their fraudulent records, and you will continue to be required to demonstrate your lawful character. One of the weapons in your arsenal are.... brackets.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply