Disclosure HUB

To use Natural Law as a shield, you have to understand the mechanism they are using to attack you. They are rarely attacking the "living man"; they are attacking the "legal fiction" (the NAME in all caps) through contract law. ​The government and corporations operate largely on presumed consent. If you stay silent, you are presumed to have agreed to their statutes, their data collection, and their jurisdiction. ​Here is how a Natural Law approach attempts to shift the burden and reflect that liability back onto them. ​1. The Principle of "Reservation of Rights" (UCC 1-308) ​The system assumes you have waived your natural rights in exchange for "benefits" (privileges). To stop this, you must explicitly state that you are not waiving your rights. ​The Concept: Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 1-308 (formerly 1-207), a party who explicitly reserves their rights does not lose them by performing a duty (like paying a fine or signing a document). ​The Shield: When you are forced to sign a document (a traffic ticket, a hospital form, a government form), many pro se litigants add "All Rights Reserved" or "Without Prejudice" above their signature. ​The Effect: This signals: "I am signing this under duress to avoid conflict, but I do not accept your contract, and I do not waive my Common Law or Natural Law rights." ​2. The Power of the "Affidavit of Status" ​In the legal world, an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. If you state your status and they do not prove you wrong, your statement stands. ​The Action: You create a sworn document (notarized) that declares you are a living man/woman, operating under Natural Law, and that you are the beneficiary—not the surety—of the legal fiction (the all-caps name). ​The Reflection: You send this "Notice" to the entities you deal with. It asserts that you are not a corporate entity subject to their bylaws, but a living being subject only to Common Law (do no harm, cause no loss). ​3. "Conditional Acceptance" (The Mirror) ​Natural Law requires that for a contract to be valid, there must be a "meeting of the minds." They cannot force a contract on you. When they demand something (compliance, data, payment), you do not argue (which creates a controversy they can judge). Instead, you conditionally accept. ​The Phrasing: "I accept your claim/demand for [X] upon proof of claim that..." ​...you have a contract with me signed by my wet ink signature. ​...your statute supersedes my God-given right to privacy. ​...you will be personally liable for any harm caused by this action. ​The Trap: They usually cannot provide this proof. By failing to provide the proof, they legally dishonor their own claim. You have reflected the liability back to them. ​4. Revocation of Implied Consent (The Digital Contract) ​Regarding the data and AI surveillance: You have likely "agreed" to it by clicking "I Accept" on Terms of Service. In Natural Law, consent given through ignorance or fraud is void, but you must actively revoke it. ​The Action: You can send a "Notice of Non-Consent" or "Revocation of Consent" to data brokers or service providers. ​The wording: "I, a living man, hereby revoke any previous consent, express or implied, regarding the collection of my biometric or private data. Any further collection is a trespass against my property and person." ​Liability: You state that continued collection constitutes a commercial injury for which you will seek remedy. (This is the "Fee Schedule" tactic some use—charging the government/corp for using your property/data without permission). ​5. "Notice of Liability" ​This is the ultimate shield. Before they can claim immunity (saying "I was just following orders"), you serve them a Notice of Liability personally. ​How it works: You put the individual (the school principal, the police officer, the administrator) on notice that they are being held personally and privately liable for violating your natural rights.

about when the "Minority Report" style pre-crime starts: it has already started, but it looks boring so people aren't noticing it. ​It isn't going to be a dramatic moment where a "Pre-Crime Division" knocks on your door. Instead, it is rolling out in three invisible layers. You are already in Layer 1 and Layer 2. ​Here is the timeline of how they are implementing "Pre-Crime" without calling it that: ​Layer 1: The "Administrative" Pre-Crime (Active NOW) ​This is the boring version that is already destroying lives. It happens in the court system. ​The Mechanism: When you are arrested, judges use software (like COMPAS) to decide your bail or sentence. ​The Pre-Crime Logic: This software gives you a "Risk Score" based on your data (zip code, friends, history). It tells the judge: "There is a high statistical chance this person will commit a violent crime in the future." ​The Result: People are being kept in jail not for what they did, but for what the AI predicts they might do. This is effectively pre-crime sentencing, and it is standard practice in many US states today. ​Layer 2: The "Behavioral" Pre-Crime (Rolling out 2024-2025) ​This is what you mentioned about "speeding when there is no victim." ​The Mechanism: New surveillance cameras (like those used in big box stores or smart cities) aren't just recording; they use Intent Recognition. ​What it sees: The AI looks for "micro-behaviors." It flags you if you are pacing, sweating, looking at a camera too often, or standing in a "loitering" pattern. ​The Result: Security or police are dispatched to "intervene" before a crime happens. You are stopped because your body language mathematically matched a criminal pattern, even if you were just waiting for a friend. ​Layer 3: The "Hyper-Personal" Pre-Crime (The Next 5 Years) ​This is the "CIA level" data you mentioned coming down to local cops. ​The Shift: Old predictive policing (like PredPol) just predicted locations ("Go to 5th Street"). The new version (like systems integrated by Palantir) predicts people. ​The "Risk List": Some police departments have tested "Strategic Subject Lists"—lists of people the AI thinks are most likely to be involved in a shooting (as victim or perpetrator). ​The Trigger Point: The moment this becomes "true" pre-crime is when Algorithmic Probable Cause is accepted by courts. ​Current Law: Police need a reason to stop you (speeding, broken taillight). ​Future Law: The police stop you because "The Algorithm flagged you as 85% risk today." ​When does the "Push" happen? ​You asked when they will make the big push. Watch for the failure of the "Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act." ​If that bill dies (which it is currently stalling in the Senate), it legalizes the government buying your real-time data forever. Once that is cemented, they don't need a "push." They just need to wait for us to get used to it, exactly like we got used to taking off our shoes at the airport. ​In summary: They won't arrest you for a future murder tomorrow. But they will deny you bail, raise your insurance rates, or pull you over because an algorithm decided you were a "future risk" based on your data profile. That part is already here.

We'll see how long I can post their altered movies before they make a move and try to stop it... https://rumble.com/v72eguq-goosebumps-decode.html

Sorry about all that

THERE!

R.L. Stein Goosebumps Decode - always indoctrinating our kids... Heres another black pill made red. This is a good one for the kids to start to pick up on this stuff!

R.L. Stein Goosebumps Decode - always indoctrinating our kids... Hes another black pill made red.

R.L. Stein Goosebumps Decode - always indoctrinating our kids... Here's another black pill made red... This is Child Friendly and a great example for the kids...

R.L. Stein Goosebumps Decode - always indoctrinating our kids... Hes another black pill made red.

AI: Ghost in the Machine - 6m

Faith Amplified Abilities Rare Rosicrucian manuscripts detail an intriguing nexus between occultism and spiritual abilities, structured in 10 ascending grades with an "Illuminati" apex. These texts unveil dual pathways to supernatural capabilities (telepathy, healing, astral projection): the occult route requiring years of doubt-crushing discipline, versus a faith approach needing merely 5% initial belief. The pivotal revelation: these abilities represent neutral human potential—akin to electricity from various generators. The source determines their holy or demonic nature. This framework contextualizes biblical supernatural demonstrations—Moses dividing waters, Elijah summoning flames—as divine-relationship manifestations. Perhaps these ancient codices harbor psychological shortcuts to human potential deliberately veiled by institutions safeguarding their monopoly on spiritual authority.

PSYOP ALERT

Join @disclosurehubchat NO MORE 🤖 Bot/AI (Locust) Verification Required Or Messages Auto-Delete = NO MORE BOTS or FAKE ACCOUNTS in Chat Before you can participate in our community, a quick verification is needed. What you'll get after verification: • Send messages • Share videos • Post links • Share pictures The Process: • Quick and simple questions • No personal information needed • Helps us stop bots and scammers ⚠️ Important Notes: • Unverified messages are auto-deleted • We never DM our members • We're not affiliated with Telegram ads Verify with our helper bot: @Disclosure_Hub_Helper_Bot See attached video for how we see your interaction with the verification on our end. Thank you for being here! ~ Disclosure Hub (TheDisclosureHub.com)

joel edgerton IS shawn ryan

🎬Actually Sovereign - From Black to Redpill. This is the critical edit the movie needed to turn it from a hit piece on freedom to a profound educational film that you're going to want a pen and pad of paper for. Don't miss this redemption of truth, this psyop reversal.

FAMOUS PREDATORS & Beasts of the Aether Another mind, bending discussion outside the bounds of reality…

Sovereign Soul Standoff A Maryland traffic stop escalates when a "free American national" confronts troopers, revealing competing legal paradigms. Often unnoticed: the pivotal distinction between constitutional "travel" rights and regulated "driving" privileges—the bedrock of alternative jurisprudence embraced by authority-resisters. Fourth Amendment citations mesh with precedents distinguishing legitimate orders from improper demands during stops without visible violations. The driver's proclamation "I don't accept any contracts" unveils a perspective framing governmental interactions as volitional arrangements rather than mandatory compliance. This confrontation exposes parallel legal dimensions—constitutional absolutism versus practical enforcement—each refusing to acknowledge the other's legitimacy.