Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 May 2020
BILL GATES IS NOSTRADAMUS ANTICHRIST
This poster might explain why March2020 has seen totalitarian removal of anything against the technocratic agenda of Bill Gates from youtube, facebook, &etc and the rebranding of truther posts based on hard science as 'fake news', the death of Freedom of Speech, under the guise of a global pandemic which has seen the death rate fall by 26000 people compared with the same time period two years ago.
Wednesday, 4 October 2017
Case Study
1
A diagnosis is an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not a Truth.
A professional diagnosis is a professional opinion. It is not a fact. It is not a Truth.
When a person claims that an opinion is inaccurate because it does not accurately describe that person, one of two things can happen.
First, preferably, the person is listened to and the situation re-evaluated. This is called common sense and falls within the broader concept of humanitarianism.
Secondly, the person is ignored and the more accurate information is irrelevant to the professional diagnosis. This is called professional misconduct. In some industries it is called neglect of duty. It is called prejudice and falls within the broader context of abuse.
2
When a person listens to a rumour and accepts it as a Truth or as a fact without first getting to the bottom of the situation, that person is not respectable. In psychiatry it is a recognised to be a mental disorder falling within a spectrum which includes cognitive dissonance and disbelief syndrome. If they act on the misinformation without requesting clarification from source, such people are recognised to be not fully functioning human beings.
When a person accepts somebody else’ opinion to be a fact or a Truth, they are not doing their own thinking. They immediately become an agent of the original lie. They become party to the corruption. They are now a component in an abuse network.
3
Identifying the original source becomes imperative in situations 1 and 2 above.
4
Once having identified that a person has lied and that a network exist to expand upon that lie, it is called corruption. All of the people involved in permeating the lie are also corrupt.
In legal terms it is called a conspiracy. It is a criminal offence. To permeate a lie from a position of authority is called fraud if there is paperwork involved, also professional misconduct, misconduct in office, and/or neglect of duty.
Such a person undermines not only their own authority but also the respectability of all positions of authority. That person should be a target of concern by all other authorities.
*in our case study, a professional criminal manages successfully to divert attention away from their own corruption by making a claim that the victim of the corruption is the person whom everybody should be suspicious of. The criminal does this to maintain their hold on office and ensure their personal income. Other conspirators in the abuse network who are also fabricating paperwork to entrench the original lie continue to pursue the course of action of discrediting the original target whenever the original target speaks out against it. It has a snowball/avalanche effect which extends to the discredited individual being set up by the authorities to criminalise him, thus further undermining his outspoken Truth.
5
What makes a person a professional is that they profess to be an acting agent of a principle.
The principle of GP’s for example, general practioners also known as Doctors if they have studied to achieve an expensive piece of paper award called a doctorate although this is not essential to be an active GP and hold a registered office, much the same way a teaching qualification is not essential to be a teacher. The principle of doctors is to doctor situations, which means to alter them. A GP is not a professionally qualified Healer which is a very, very different occupation and principle.
The principle of the GP is to unquestioningly do what the computer tells him to do. The academic text books are also based on opinions and solidified using case studies. The opinions based on observational studies of groups of people somewhere else in the world at some other time under different conditions. In terms of science, that is not proper scientific protocol.
Common Sense and Humanitarianism indicates that if, as in our scenario, the case study is a target of abuse by a criminal network operating through the system, and whose opinion has been undermined and replaced officially by a misdiagnosis, that the existence of case studies is irrelevant if one is attempting to establish the truth of any individual situation. Case studies are inaccurate to the reality of situations and exist to cover up corruption. They are not facts. They are not Truths. Case studies exist to maintain a source of income for professionals in office. They do not exist to heal people for the simple reason that healing people involves actually listening to what that person is saying.
See also: Case Study Notes
A diagnosis is an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not a Truth.
A professional diagnosis is a professional opinion. It is not a fact. It is not a Truth.
When a person claims that an opinion is inaccurate because it does not accurately describe that person, one of two things can happen.
First, preferably, the person is listened to and the situation re-evaluated. This is called common sense and falls within the broader concept of humanitarianism.
Secondly, the person is ignored and the more accurate information is irrelevant to the professional diagnosis. This is called professional misconduct. In some industries it is called neglect of duty. It is called prejudice and falls within the broader context of abuse.
2
When a person listens to a rumour and accepts it as a Truth or as a fact without first getting to the bottom of the situation, that person is not respectable. In psychiatry it is a recognised to be a mental disorder falling within a spectrum which includes cognitive dissonance and disbelief syndrome. If they act on the misinformation without requesting clarification from source, such people are recognised to be not fully functioning human beings.
When a person accepts somebody else’ opinion to be a fact or a Truth, they are not doing their own thinking. They immediately become an agent of the original lie. They become party to the corruption. They are now a component in an abuse network.
3
Identifying the original source becomes imperative in situations 1 and 2 above.
4
Once having identified that a person has lied and that a network exist to expand upon that lie, it is called corruption. All of the people involved in permeating the lie are also corrupt.
In legal terms it is called a conspiracy. It is a criminal offence. To permeate a lie from a position of authority is called fraud if there is paperwork involved, also professional misconduct, misconduct in office, and/or neglect of duty.
Such a person undermines not only their own authority but also the respectability of all positions of authority. That person should be a target of concern by all other authorities.
*in our case study, a professional criminal manages successfully to divert attention away from their own corruption by making a claim that the victim of the corruption is the person whom everybody should be suspicious of. The criminal does this to maintain their hold on office and ensure their personal income. Other conspirators in the abuse network who are also fabricating paperwork to entrench the original lie continue to pursue the course of action of discrediting the original target whenever the original target speaks out against it. It has a snowball/avalanche effect which extends to the discredited individual being set up by the authorities to criminalise him, thus further undermining his outspoken Truth.
5
What makes a person a professional is that they profess to be an acting agent of a principle.
The principle of GP’s for example, general practioners also known as Doctors if they have studied to achieve an expensive piece of paper award called a doctorate although this is not essential to be an active GP and hold a registered office, much the same way a teaching qualification is not essential to be a teacher. The principle of doctors is to doctor situations, which means to alter them. A GP is not a professionally qualified Healer which is a very, very different occupation and principle.
The principle of the GP is to unquestioningly do what the computer tells him to do. The academic text books are also based on opinions and solidified using case studies. The opinions based on observational studies of groups of people somewhere else in the world at some other time under different conditions. In terms of science, that is not proper scientific protocol.
Common Sense and Humanitarianism indicates that if, as in our scenario, the case study is a target of abuse by a criminal network operating through the system, and whose opinion has been undermined and replaced officially by a misdiagnosis, that the existence of case studies is irrelevant if one is attempting to establish the truth of any individual situation. Case studies are inaccurate to the reality of situations and exist to cover up corruption. They are not facts. They are not Truths. Case studies exist to maintain a source of income for professionals in office. They do not exist to heal people for the simple reason that healing people involves actually listening to what that person is saying.
“It takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel.” Ancient Folk Wisdom
See also: Case Study Notes
Friday, 12 October 2012
SocialSecurityAdministrationAct1992 Section187
19.6.2012
To HSBC
With reference to your letter dated 12.6.2012;
You inform me that my account is being micro-managed. As such I am sure that you are aware that I am in receipt of state benefits as my only source of income.
In accordance with the Social Security Administration Act 1992;
“Certain benefit to be inalienable.
187.—(1) Subject to the provision of this Act, every assignment of or charge on–
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992;
[3(a) a jobseeker’s allowance;]
(b) any income-related benefit; or
(c) child benefit,
and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void;”
This is an Act of Parliament which over-rides banks taking charges from an account of people who are in receipt of any of the following benefits;
• Income Support
• Tax Credits
• Child Benefit
• Job seekers allowance
• Incapacity benefit
• Disability living allowance
•Attendance Allowance
• CSA payments
• Other DWP payments.
These social security benefits are granted to stop hardship and are designed to meet basic day to day needs, and are exempt from arrestment in terms of section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 Chapter 21 part 1 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act. This stipulates that the banks can not apply any charges to money received as benefit, and any such charges are unlawful and therefore disallowed.
Therefore I request that you waive all fees currently pending at this time. In light of the above Act I do not expect for any charges to be applied to my account in the future.
Furthermore, as my financial difficulties do stem from charges made to my account by the bank during the past few years, I request a hardcopy of all transactions since the account was opened and immediate reimbursement of all bank charges that have been levied.
Failure to act in accordance with the governing policies will of course result in my taking the matter to Law. Your presumed response of citing small print involved with contractual obligation will be dealt with by my reminding you that such terms & conditions are unlawful and are therefore voided by the above mentioned statutes, as clearly stated.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
A reply arrived today dated 27.6.12.
Halfway down page 2 after a lot of waffle it says;
"I note your comments in which you advise that the only source of income into the account is derived from state benefits paid to yourself. If my understanding of the position is correct you allege that the bank is unlawfully deducting charges from your account when you are in receipt of benefits, when the government has implied that this is the minimum amount of income required to live on.
Please be assured that we have investigated this matter and we can confirm that we are acting within section 187 of the Social Services Administration Act 1992.
Full details of this act can be found on www.hmrc.gov.uk"
28.10.2012 ADDITIONAL
According to this website: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1497117;
Jason JAG Law: "Taken from another website:
Read the Government’s response
The purpose of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 Section 187 and section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is to prevent people’s benefit money being at risk by it being assigned over to a third party in settlement of a debt. It is not intended to prohibit the application of bank charges. Bank charges are in the nature of an expense, and are incurred by the holder of the account; tax credits and benefits are payable in order to help customers meet their expenses, and as such it is legitimate for banks to deduct charges from the balance of an account held in that bank, whether the money paid into the account comes from tax credits, benefits or other sources, such as earnings."
Smokeychan1: "LOL what do they think bank charges are then? Are they not a debt???"
soapfan_1973: "Yes, but not a debt owed to a "third party."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
