No. 104: Revisitation of "Hypnosis and Testimony" of 12.10.2021 - 2.20.2025

Do you remember when I told you that if you agreed to go along with "Madame Zelenskyy" then you had crossed a line from whence there was no return and you would not be my ally?

Do you remember when I told you that "Shetl Ho" was not a joke, it was not in "Yiddish", it was not our "culture" and that you would be held entirely responsible for your willing cooperation with the crimes attendant to it?

Yes...it was around this time...and you know it...how long before the War in Ukraine? Even before the incursion into Kazahkstan? How long before the Invasion of Gaza? How long before the 2022 election? 2024 election? Before your crimes at Fort America?

How many people did you kill in the meantime? Did you measure that "jewish blood" in gallons or metric litres?

Did you measure your success in body counts? In "triple-vaxxes?" In dollar amounts on weapons contracts? On pounds of documents you stole and "destroyed" in order to cover up the evidence? In financial institutions and brokerages that signed on to "bonds" that you use to tax other people for what you want to claim as your "compensation" after you steal their work?

Do you still remember what you looked like or felt like in your own dreams before someone else said it was their "minerals" and you needed to "die" and change your own identity in order to "code" your life to them?

Did you hear them pull the tube on the bong while they were watching what was put forth as "war crimes proceedings" on their internet?

Did you hear them use your spouse for their "spousal benefits" while they used your "digital account" to launder money for what they "staked" from you before they "consummated" the "conveyance?"

Did you hear them bid their own children online? Did you hear them bid someone else's? Did you agree to "auction" off your own friends, or "donate" them, under the auspices that you could "VSST" their "stock?"

Did you wait it out for six months, one year, eighteen months, even up to 21 years, so you could "redeem" what was "sacrificed" out of someone else's life?

"Pre-meditation" is not the same as "meditating."

It makes a difference how much you talk to yourself in public places -- especially when you have been exclusively remanded to "public property."

9:44 am CST

Feb. 20, 2025

President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse

Did you "bid" on this notice? Are you going to say me "re-posting" my own work is evidence that I "obeyed you?"

Where are my daggers?

This is not about obedience. It is about "cost accounting" because I ALREADY PAID FOR ALL MY OUTLAYS AND YOU DID NOT.

Krushchev was not relevant for my accounting purposes until before what was stolen on Oct. 10, 2024. The receipt is in the book. If you insist on positing yourself in a command position I can only charge you for every quarter hour at my rate since it was stolen and the court was notified.

And what time was that?

Don't you have the email with my records of contacting the court and being contacted by the court?

You owe me for every time quanta after 4:30 pm CST on Oct. 10, 2024 until this is posted.

I will start another "invoice after this to be put into effect every time you try to demonstrate your "command authority."

I did not consent.

9:49 am CST - Post in one minute.

_____________________________________________________________

“Post-hypnotic suggestion” and qualifications regarding fitness to be a witness per State v. Moore, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 902 A.2d. 1212.

Given the description this case appears to be about the reliability of witness testimony acquired after hypnosis. But, perhaps it can also support argumentation regarding other considerations of “hypnosis” and the implication it has on witness testimony, as well as considerations of legal treatment of persons and considerations of criminal culpability.

This is what I wrote last night after 8:45 pm before 9 pm:

“Post-hypnotic suggestion and psychotropics, especially in consideration of a) mental competence to engage contract and b) ability to recall after engagement of medication regime, including in consideration of “preventing future harm” in normalizing or legalizing psychedelics or synthetic drugs currently scheduled as narcotics and with a history of being used in compulsion or coercion to commit crime; mandate of such drugs in NON-JUDICIALLY or LEGALLY JUSTIFIED internment or detention as opposed to rights of accused to confrontation and other due process.”

So last night the consideration came up how they are actually USING psychotropics as a form of hypnosis, in addition to other impressments. But then I considered the use of electronic media, including the use of backend coding of subliminal implantations like what I contend occurred as part of the provocation that led to the Florida and Texas school shootings in 2018. While there were definitely other strategic matters about why and how it occurred, including as I already presented for public consideration, there is also the hypnotic effect of radiofrequency, including radiofrequency specifically calibrated to impact biochemistry in order to attempt to excitate or otherwise impact behavior. It should be considered in accordance with my revised review of Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S. (from Nov. 15, 2021). I cannot say that NOT referencing PEG would do more good than the harm of not exposing that it was specifically considered and determined in the manner it was at the time it was. Suppressing of such information and that sort of context is part of the problem. “Editing” it out and trying to supplant it with something else is not going to address the factors that attempt to influence one’s sub- or unconscious. You can read about the case and the implications of what the magazine is about without broadcasting the pictures from the magazine and THAT is what the revised determination is about.

But, there is ALSO the argument to be made of hypnosis -- not just post-hypnotic suggestion -- in the manner in which alleged “behavioral science” techniques have been applied, including in connection with exposure to or through electronics. The “programming” that is set up in regards to “mental health treatment” can be experienced akin to a form of hypnosis, especially when one is engaged in processes where failure to acknowledge their own sense perceptivity and “ground” it in a manner that provides a logic that they can understand and with which they can process symbolic information for practical application. What does it mean to accept as credible the “testimony” of someone who cannot apply the literal standards of qualifications of their job but instead rely on being able to use symbolic or automated processes to default their status over and above actually being able to attend to the literal matter at hand? Allowing for that to persist while intentionally denying other individuals the credibility to present their own claims or cases regarding their sense perception of understanding, including in a manner that were there to be available equal access to resources to substantiate or justify their claims would potentially challenge the practical credibility of someone who has access to status within a power system over them, is a flat out abrogation of “rights to due process.”

We no longer discuss or have presented for us discussions of “equal treatment before the law” when it comes to considerations of alleged violations of certain laws. The laws regarding the right to contract, the right to be safe in one’s person and property, the right to be free from illegally acquired obligation, or to be branded as the property of another, have not been accorded consideration in regards to the right to “equal treatment before the law.” “Performance” as a form of “hypnosis” is what in relation to this reality?

What is hypnosis? Is the concern about CONSCIOUS CONSENT and CONSCIOUS ACTION based upon independent thought that is determinant of a CONSCIOUSLY ENGAGED ACT? Then we can be and are talking about myriad matters related to the right to contract. Demonstrations of mental competence as part of the contract process are NOT the same as needing to exhibit pre-determined qualifying behaviors in order to NOT BE DISPOSSESSED of one’s right, including the right to contract. That competence needs to be demonstrated in a bilateral or multilateral manner, not JUST a unilateral matter. A contract is not a trial. It is not an accusation against which one needs to defend oneself. A contract should not be permitted to supplant one’s right to trial by jury or to petition for redress against grievances to which they have been subjected. But neither should a refusal to permit for confrontation in trial permit for someone to lose their right to contract or be released from the terms of an illegally engaged contract. And by law, it is NOT legal to make a contract to commit crime. So what if not hypnosis is permitting for people that are willingly and knowingly refusing to perform the duties of their jobs while still expecting that other people will also perform in a manner that lacks their demonstrated cognizance of conscious consent? Insofar as such people may be under hypnosis, then can their testimony be considered valid?

Applying hypnosis is different than making a determination about one’s mental competence and/or disability. That also includes considerations of culpability when it comes to commission of crime. Is it legal to undergo hypnosis so one cannot be compelled to recall one’s action, or made to explain their actions, when it comes to commission of acts of crime? Saying that one agreed to undergo hypnosis to be prevented from considerations of culpability is different than trying to escape consciously engaged culpability, including the mental stress that comes with a guilty conscience. (Additionally, is “racketeering” a person, or rather, compelling a person to repeat the same actions over and over again in an effort to compel them to relinquish their conscious analytical capabilities so as to merely obey commands, including sublimated commands, or follow conditioned cues, a form of hypnosis? If they agree to “cede” to an order to do something that they consciously understand is not appropriate or legal, what does that say about the relationship of hypnosis in the overall context? Can you use hypnosis to torture someone, or is it no longer torture when you accept the hypnosis?)

I know someone else wants another consideration, one perhaps that would make a justification for permitting for the ingestion or use or some form of medication in order to see hypnosis as a form or affliction that can be “cured” with some sort of neurochemical modification based on ingestion of a “medication.” I do not agree. 

2:57 pm CST

3:06 pm CST review

_____________________________________

See notes in notebook since Nov. 18, 2021.

11:43 am CST

Dec. 10, 2021

_____________________________________

See case (Boddie v. Connecticut) regarding “legal argument” as a property protected by the 14th Amendment as well as application for argument concerning “monopoly” regarding criminal prosecution by the state.

Also see case (McPeters v. LexisNexis) regarding electronic filing process and the arguments regarding the difference between having a legal representative and representing oneself when it comes to determinations of “agreement” and acknowledgement of “payment.”

Also see cases on Texas law regarding medical claims (Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Hous. v. Joplin) – including the relationship of facilities – when it comes to determining liability, as well as definitions under the law of what the facilities are. See my arguments regarding implications for “workplace safety” and liability in regards to the person who is working KNOWING that by law they are required to adhere to certain standards but understanding that they are willing to cooperate with violations of those standards insofar as the company refuses to apply them. This is specific to being responsible through your work for the safety and welfare of others as opposed to attempting vindication for your rights as a “worker.”

Do I need to address this from a “secondary terrorism” argument? There is actually precedent for this in regards to the matters pertaining to the difference between “accomplice” and “principle” when it comes to “culpability“ and “conspiracy.” (Moss v. Brown)

Re: Reviews from July 24-25, 2022.

11:42 am CST

Aug. 10, 2022

Charity Colleen Crouse