To access this page, you must have purchased a Membership and log in. If you do not have an active InPower Membership, please purchase one of the following membership options 24 Month InPower Membership, 12 Month InPower Membership, 6 Month InPower Membership or 3 Month InPower Membership.
Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 3, Answers: 11)
Asked on May 25, 2020 4:31 pm
thank you.
( at May 26, 2020 2:39 am)
Private answer

Hello L,  Yes, but at the same time, the government did not give you full disclosure for accepting their offer. With any contract, there must be full disclosure. They are relying on your tacit agreement.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Answers: 474)
Answered on May 25, 2020 10:00 pm
Lea, would you mind elaborating on the disclosure principle? There is definitely some confusion about this out there. Many have caught on to the disclosures and ‘predictive programming’ happening through media and entertainment— and are under the impression that full disclosure is happening that way (i.e. its hidden in some movie, show, music, or article somewhere sometime), and those doing this are banking on it being a ‘loophole,’ regardless of whether men and women are able to piece it all together. Are they, in actuality, only partially disclosing through these means— and more disclosing intent rather than the offers themselves? Could you explain what you mentioned above that ‘the government did not give you full disclosure for accepting their offer’ (recent stimulus)? Cal also alluded to something about this in some interviews, that actually they were also flat out lying about things. Is this permissible in the oaths that have bound them to the disclosure principle? Or are they just banking on their partial disclosure checking that box? At least in my group, understanding this further could be a ‘game changer,’ as many are being swept into an undertow of discouragement, thinking that full disclosure is in fact happening, and that it is their responsibility to piece it together from all those platforms— naturally then creating an assumption that whatever is put out there through the media and entertainment is, in fact, exactly what will take place in our future. Any clarification would help! Thank you!
( at May 26, 2020 8:51 am)

Yes, I asked Cal to address this for you, so here is Cal’s explanation:

In the law contracts, there are 4 main parts

Meeting of the minds
Unconditional acceptance
Consideration or performance

A part of the ”meeting of the minds’ is what is known as full disclosure. Each party (particularly the seller must give full disclosure of all defects, problems, issues, regarding the thing or service being sold in good faith.

So in a bona fide contract you cannot lie, coerce, do/sell something illegal etc. or the contract is voidable and in some instances is void ab into (as if it never happened)

The government et al tend to operate more in Law Merchant where things are slightly different, and which was traditionally for the Merchant class, and concepts like ’tacit agreement’ exist. Even old Common Law operated more or less under caveat emptor (buyer beware), so in my experience and opinion, some of these ancient ways are being utilized. regardless of more modern ”acts”.

That all said, in my opinion, many of the unilateral ’contracts’ that so called ’governments’ have foisted upon ’we the people’ can be lawfully voided, for lack of disclosure (the main one being that our ’volunteering’ or ’applying’ was in fact a contract in the first place)

As far as ’full disclosure’ in movies etc. that is a whole other ’level’ so to speak. The so called ’elite’ must get ’our’ agreement before they can proceed. So it’s more of a ’large scale’ ”contract” that they are attempting to put forward in order to stand before ’higher jurisdiction(s)’ and claim ”We told them, and they agreed”. Because the disclosure is veiled, although ’hidden in plain view’, it is really only ”technically” meeting the requirement(s). Lucifer is always ”technical” (as is the court system), so the ”disclosure” that has been given may or may not be ’binding’. As in it meets the requirement ”technically”, but whether or not it stands as giving disclosure in upper jurisdictions is the question.

I am aware of the disclosure, but many are not, because it is not clearly stated as such, and from what I know of the ultimate Judge, little or none of it is going to fly.
For those that can see the disclosure, it does give them a ’heads up’, so that they can do something, but in my opinion, we cannot be expected (contractually bound) to ’figure it out’ from the ’disclosure’ that has and is being given.

That all said, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Bible (plus Book of Enoch) has just about everything one can need to understand what its really going on…
It’s astounding really…


( at May 27, 2020 7:07 pm)
Thank you very much Lea and Cal! That is a helpful clarification.
( at June 3, 2020 6:48 pm)