Does this have anything to do with the letter "P" in "Pelosi"? I think I'm barking up a wrong tree, but I've been trying to dissect potential alternatives for her name/signature.
Could the president make use of the Super Bowl's tremendous viewership ("World is Watching" scale stuff) to deliver a message… even SOTU? I've seen a shit-ton of indications that he's not going to let the Super Bowl's potential go to waste.
This "screen cap this post" post made me think of it yet again. "involes" instead of "invokes"… L instead of K… 11 and 12 letters… sum of which is 2 and 3… 2/3 is super bowl… weekend of which is at [:02] and [:03] on Qclock.
Perhaps. She does have the Speakership "Chair." And I like your "For Q" timestamp. :)
>>4885502 >>4885529
Hey anons… timestamp 04:01:07… 417 … "For Q" asks if "P"elosi = "P"ayseur? (emphasis added).
Is POTUS "Madam" vs. "Madame" a wink to her French Nobility? Or representation thereof?
Is the ''Art of the Signature'' legally relevant?
I've been moderately looking into Admiralty Law / Maritime Law and wondering how corrupted our entire system / version of reality is by it.
Why has Trump's signature changed so much?
Why is Melania's so similar in form/style? Chance? Do these "signatures" convey more/less than we lay-people think?
Does Nancy's signature actually say something, as in convey information? Like "Navy P is lost"? I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't pretend to have this remotely figured out, but I think there's something here.
They are legally different entities, aren't they? One is the signature of the man and one is the signature of "President of the United States" (the corporation, as opposed to "United States of America"). Is POTUS' signature a corporate… "logo"? "Watermark"? "Authorized signature" but not DJT the man?
And when Nancy signs with her name printed in ALL CAPS, what relevance does that have? ALL CAPS name is the strawman legal fiction of yourself, yes?
Yeah. Somehow I feel like all of this is going to turn into at least a personal slide for me into investigating the practicality of people who claim (and take efforts to do) declare themselves free of this Maritime Law system and no longer engage in practices that legally implicate them into voluntarily taking part.
The whole… officer asks if you "understand" your rights thing… do I stand under my rights? "No." And stand before judge and be a legal "idiot"… a private man… a natural citizen, NOT a citizen of "THE UNITED STATES"… all that jazz… interdasting stuff. Not sure how practical, though… presently.
I have "heard" of it working, but hearing about something and knowing it to be true are quite different things.
Full text of "The war of 1886, between the United States and Great Britain. The surprising experience–the military and financial situation of our beloved country–capture of the lake, sea-board, and Mississippi-River cities and the capital–the British terms of peace–the military and financial reconstruction"
http://www.archive.org/stream/warbetweenunite00reegoog/warbetweenunite00reegoog_djvu.txt