Ambiguities by Definition Legal, Sometimes Unlawful or Reasonable

Ambiguities by Definition Legal, Sometimes Unlawful or Reasonable

IL - Blake 2JUSTICE.buddhist_hell.TULANE LINK


If you, being natural individual man/(wo)man,  have ever relied on the con cept of justice as a con struct in your favor with fairness and equality to the matter in substance, you being, as a matter of law and perception,  presumed “citizen’s” (“slave”)/ward of the court/government property  favor by reason of morality and principles informed by traditional notions and values of right and wrong construed in the light most favorable to you and your property sometimes called “child”, the natural man/(wo)man “plaintiff,” “parent,” or “defendant,” then you are a perfect target for injustice and disillusionment on a scale more grand than the most active imagination has the power to  con ceive absent divine intuition and real life experience. 

The modern individual, and especially mommy or daddy threatened by nature and essence of existence imbued with the Spirit divine, living in nature, must become literate in at least the basics of the ancient art of semantic ambiguity of art con trived by scribes, now attorners, lawyers, inner temple BAR members and barristers or solicitors, as a matter of necessity for survival and true protection (absent art or semantic meaning, or ambiguity of the actual word) from the dark “principalities” and spiritual forces that have come to light and may no longer be ignored (quoting Ephesians 6, Spiritual Warfare, The Holy Bible, all real versions).  Recall that a most basic principle taught in the Scripture–the Word, the Truth, the real Light—begins with the fact that humanity constitutes the bane of existence for native Fallen creatures whose claim to this Earth as they construe it would be grossly underestimated as an overwheening demand for entitlement that exceeds the physical and moral boundaries of law or legality as exercised by a man/(wo)man who wears a black robe.

We must learn to not only read for content, meaning, truth, also being subversive in nature and intent and purpose Common at its very hot Core, but to put on a pair of bi-focals and read through the dark lens the same that  a corporate medical malpractice attorney must use when he scans a complaint for monetary damages.  Ambitious?  We, “the People,” “sovereign,” and “elect” in nature as a Founding and proven matter of law think not impossible remembering that “anything is possible with GOD, ALMIGHTY POWER,” THE Commander of Heaven’s Armies Himself who lives inside of His chosen child property already Claimed.  Ye of Little Faith, isn’t that the lesson you taught your own children? 

Above all, remember that our divine Creator Has affirmatively Established and the Federal US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights requires that each individual choose his own contract and contractor with eternal consequences.  Freedom to contract, when construed in this light, compels understanding and enlightenment about the true nature of the real contracts and contractors vying for the sole property man/(wo)man/property called “child”–WAR, Spiritual in REALITY.

LESSON NUMBER ONE IN AMBIGUITY OF SEMANTIC ART AND LEGAL CONSTRUCTION BELOW (extracted from the publicly available online definition in verbatim from the US Department of Justice Attorney General’s website under “Civil Rights” Resources at ):



A contract term is ambiguous “[i]f more than one meaning is reasonably consistent with the contract language.” Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d 990, 997 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Ambiguity may be either patent or latent.A patent ambiguity is “glaring”; it is so obvious from the face of the contract that it would place a reasonable contractor on notice of a discrepancy. Metric Constructors, Inc. v. NASA, 169 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Patent ambiguities raise an exception to the general rule of contra proferentem, which courts use to construe ambiguities against the drafter: a contractor is under a duty to attempt to resolve a patent ambiguity prior to bidding if the contractor subsequently wishes to rely upon the provision. See e.g., id., Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007).A latent ambiguity, by contrast, exists where a contract is reasonably, but not obviously, susceptible of more than one interpretation. In the case of a latent ambiguity, the rule of contra proferentem applies to construe the ambiguity against the drafter if the nondrafter’s interpretation is reasonable, and the nondrafter relied upon that interpretation. See Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 367 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Metric Constructors, 169 F.3d at 751. The reasonableness of an interpretation is determined by ordinary principles of contract construction. [updated September 2013; cited in USAM 4-4.420]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s