KYP17-20 Through THIS PROCESS CRYSTALLINE COMPOSITE FORMS are CREATED, which SERVE as the MORPHOGENETIC BLUEPRINTS through which INDIVIDUATED FORMS and IDENTITY will MANIFEST.

 


KYP17-20

Through THIS PROCESS CRYSTALLINE COMPOSITE FORMS are CREATED, which 

SERVE as the MORPHOGENETIC BLUEPRINTS 

through which INDIVIDUATED FORMS and IDENTITY will MANIFEST.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CourtofAges/comments/1bsfp0e/kyp1720_through_this_process_crystalline/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

XRPL COURT CASES 04-55 : NESARA - Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP 21-cv-06862-SBA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2022) Cited 1 times

Image
Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP 21-cv-06862-SBA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2022)    Cited 1 times The Dismissal Order did not address “ NESARA ,” which was not raised in the Trial by Affidavit. Plaintiffs could have raised this purported “law” in their opposition to the motion to dismiss but failed to do so. Notably, insofar as “ NESARA ” refers to the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act, no such law has been enacted. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/13/fact-check-no-congress-has-not-passed- nesara /9515254002/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
Read more

XRPL COURT CASES 12-55 : United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel 19-cv-809-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 2021)

Image
United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel 19-cv-809-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 2021) The claim to a denial of fair notice is similarly meritless. “Due process requires that “laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). In cases assessing whether fair notice was given, however, courts look to the particular SEC rule or rule interpretation that is challenged. E.g., Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1996) (looking at whether Rule 15c3-3(e) was interpreted correctly); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20CV10832ATSN, 2021 WL 2323089 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2021) (looking at whether the SEC considered  XRP  a security); KPMG, LLP v. S.E.C., 289 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (looking at the interpretation of AICPA Rule 302).
Read more