very strange notable here - NO documents at alljust a research essay on pole shift - this is hardly a secret - emmanuel velikovsky documents this same earth pole shift history in 1950's and his book is well known
see
https://www.velikovsky.info/worlds-in-collision/
>>4834691 Declassified CIA documents on pole inversion
this could be what is coming and explains 21 trillion in underground bases - As for me, i wont be going down there ill do a woody harrelson
lawfag here to reply to minorlawfag notable
good start with contract law but the second and equally important question is the REMEDY
your analysis concludes BREACH and i concur
now analyze what options the court weighs in both law and equity and what factors the court could consider in ruling on the remedy
what requirements are there to grant SP minorfag?
also - would the court punt on the basis of political question?
>>4834490 A contract with Nancy: Minor lawfag weighs in
lawfag here sng noice work finally an anon gets this - reposting a portion of my analysis that leads to this conclusion (full post if requested)
Presidential Succession Acts
Remember the 25th Amendment did NOT change Congess's ConstitutionalauthorIty to designate successors other than the VP - so after the VP, Congress may declare "…what Officer shall then act as President…"
Law under this clause have been around since 1792 in more or less the same form. A significant amendment was passed in 1947 and has remained more or less intact since.
Under this law, as most anons already know, after the VP the primary succession is House Speaker, President of the Senate, then Secretarty of State. This seems perfectly natural but it really is not. Consider the current situation - if POTUS and Pence are gone then is it right that Nancy Pelosi be made President? The same problem would occur if the President of the Senate of the opposing party became President. This points out a major flaw in the law Congress passed.
The legal question is - are House and Senate "officers" as contemplated by the Constitution? Most legal scholars say they are NOT, pointing out that the term "Officer" refers to an "Officer of the United States," a legal term that excludes members of Congress. Instead, officers of the USA are high level executives appointed by POTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate - in other words - CABINET HEADS.
Just as compelling is the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2)—which bars officials in the federal government's executive branch from simultaneously serving in either the U.S. House or Senate.
gee didnt realize they had colorpics when the talmud was written
oh yeah
the rabbi pic is fake and gay just like the post
try to locate and read any ONE of the quotes you posted in the talmud
you will see the context and why your post is fake news
bet you wont do it
bet you CANT do it even if you try
talmud and jesus side by side
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.—Matthew 5:7 He who is merciful to others, shall receive mercy from Heaven.—R. Gamaliel Beribbi, 3rd century A.D.,Shabbath 151b
Let what you say be simply yes or no.—Matthew 5:37 Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.—R. Abaye, died 338 A.D., Baba Metzia 49a
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye?—Matthew 7:3 Do they say, take the splinter out of your eye, he will retort: “Remove the beam out of your own eye.”—R. Johanan, surnamed Bar Napha, 199-279 A.D., Baba Bathra 15b.
i do not believe so anon
he claimed crustal shifts exactly like the cia essay
dont know if he said magnetic for certIN
though he mentioned that ancients collisions set this in motion
see sumerian tablets history where this is described
>>>4835453 Anon claims that pb >>4834490 is wrong
lawfag here - it is not wrong - consideration is an issue but almost always presumed cuz it is a deminimus threshold - NOT notable
however there are parts missing from minorfag notable analysis but not consideration
please see my post this bread on this
not much of a lawfag are you
didnt say it was not an element of a contract duh
find me a recent written case that held no consideration
good luck with that one
here it is baker
c6299c (10) No.4835206
lawfag here to reply to minorlawfag notable
good start with contract law but the second and equally important question is the REMEDY
your analysis concludes BREACH and i concur
now analyze what options the court weighs in both law and equity and what factors the court could consider in ruling on the remedy
what requirements are there to grant SP minorfag?
also - would the court punt on the basis of political question?
>>4834490 A contract with Nancy: Minor lawfag weighs in