Excommunication is a censure used to deprive or suspend one in an exposed community. This presentation explains the reality of excommunication and slanderous condemnation associated with excommunication for alerting identified marks to their black & white crimes based on black & white rules in our rule based society.

First, Excommunication is the most serious penalty to levy against one. It is a seldom used punishment to discipline unrelenting defiance of rules. Prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication:

A) vitandus (shunned, literally “to be avoided”), where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and
B) toleratus (tolerated, which permitted [all theo sectors] Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant).

Now, the past basis of business or social excommunication is anathema. The references are found in Galatians 1:8 — “But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be anathema!” Then also, 1 Corinthians 16:22 — “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be anathema.” The word can be translated several ways; the King James Version translates it accursed.

Next, we have limited examples of excommunication. Jesus, in Matthew 18:17, teaches that those who repeatedly offend others should be treated as “Gentiles or tax collectors.” In Romans 16:17, Paul writes to “mark those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them”, (meaning from Jesus and the apostles); and in 1 Corinthians 5, he instructs the Corinthians to expel an immoral member of their community. Also, in 2nd John vv. 10 & 11, the elders write unto the elect lady “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine, hath not.

Shifting, the Romans (meaning Christain/Catholics), acrosss the globe, have an extensive history of the uses of excommunication for alerting the exposed to rules, especially during the Middle Ages.

Anathema (in Greek Ανάθεμα) meaning originally something lifted up as an offering to the gods; later, with evolving meanings, it came to mean:

A) To be formally set apart;
B) Banished, Exiled, excommunicated; or
C) Denounced, sometimes accursed.

Ask & you shall receive, the gospels say!

Chapter 9: Behavioral Theory Applications and Research

Behavior Modification

Since the only thing worth measuring in behavioral theory is behavior, it is only logical that the one thing behaviorists focus on changing is also behavior. Behavior modification is the generic term given any process derived from learning theory where the goal is to change a person’s behavior or the way he or she interacts with the [rule based] world.

Definition: The term black op often refers to a “Black operation,” a type of covert operation typically involving activities that are either secret or of questionable ethics and legality. The term itself is often used in political, military, intelligence and business circles. Agents or persons who specialise or are involved in a black operation are typically referred to as a “Black operator” or “black operative.”

Black Ops missions often fall into the deniability category, where no government will claim responsibility for the action, or where responsibility is shifted to another actor in the case of a “false flag” operation.

This type of operation is normally used by various secret services to achieve some goals while trying to operate secretly (so the connection between “black operations” and secret agents or even the country of their origin cannot be found).
INFRA RED IMAGING
To understand behavior modification, you have to understand the two main concepts that it is based on: Classical and Operant Conditioning. Class-ic-al conditioning refers to the pairing of naturally occurring stimulus-response chains with other stimuli in order to produce a similar response. Operant conditioning started as an experiment in learning and developed into the Law of Effect and our knowledge of reinforcement, punishment, and extinction.

SYSTEMATIC DISSEMINATION PRESS
SYSTEMATIC EDUCATION – PERMANENT PRESS

Shaping – Changing complex behaviors, hence, requires complex behavioral modification. The steps involved are often called successive approximations because they successively approximate or get closer and closer to the desired behavior.

In behavior modification, we apply these same techniques in order to effect change on the way a person acts or responds to the environment. Changing complex behaviors, hence, requires complex behavioral modification. The concept of shaping comes into play here. Shaping refers to the reinforcement of behaviors that approximate or come close to the desired new behavior. The steps involved are often called successive approximations because they successively approximate or get closer and closer to the desired behavior.

Research has found that this technique works well for phobias and anxiety related disorders. Take arachnophobia for instance, the fear of spiders.

Web Security: First Draft of “Web Security Context”; Last Call of “Web Security Experience, Indicators and Trust”

To be diagnosed with an [info leak] phobia you must have both an irrational fear that is not justified by current outcome and significant distress or negative consequences because of this irrational fear. To modify this fear or the behavior of avoiding or running away from spiders, behaviorists would apply the concept of shaping.

The process of shaping involves the creation of a hierarchy ranging from the least feared situation (such as a stuffed animal that looks like a spider) to the most feared situation (a real tarantula, for example). We would then fill in the space between the two with situations that progressively produce higher levels of fear. The following is an example of such a hierarchy:

Money sadists play vicious power games with money as a way of asserting their power & greed. They often, for example, make you wait for money that is owed you, promising things like “the check is in the mail” or ignoring a legitimate debt reality.

The Bargain – Demon

Powerful people judge everything by what it costs, not just in money but in time, dignity, & peace of mind. And this is exactly what bargain demons can not do. Wasting valuable time, they balk.

The Cash & The Power

In the realm of power, everything must be judged by its costs, & everything has a price. What is offered for free or at the bargain rates often comes with a psychological price TAG – complicated feelings of obligation, compromised rule bending & so forth.

The powerful learn early to protect their most valuable resources: independence and room to maneuver. By paying the full price, they keep themselves free of dangerous entanglement & worries.

Being open & flexible with money also teaches the value of strategic generosity, a variation on the old trick of “giving when you are about to take.”

The Greedy Fish & False Sincerity

The greedy fish take the human side out of money. Cold & ruthless, they see only the lifeless numbers & chances to come up at another’s expense, viewing others solely as pawns, they trample on people’s sentiments & alienate valuable allies. No one wants to work or associate with the Greedy Fish, & over the years they end up isolated, which often proves their own undoing.

Some play with money control power & lose it all by a fatal mistake. Some go too far. Others make all the right moves, drawing power to oneself with an almost superhuman dexterity.

The Mirror Effect

The mirror reflects reality, but it is also the perfect tool for deception; when you mirror your rivals words & behavior, they, like human animals, often over-react. Few can resist the power of the Mirror Effect. Mirrors have the power to disturb us. In using the mirror effect, mimicking their acts & words, in context, they feel mocked, they get angry & react defensively, often animal like, lying & creating false records of fact & character assassination attacks. The Mirror Effect is a powerful psychological tool because it operates on the most primitive man animal emotions, as expected.

The “verbatim” mirror effect applied, in the money control context, follows!
A Intro
To I-Can-D

Pump Kin Capers

“KEVIN THE BUM IS WAITING FOR CANDY”

“LOOK AT THE CAMERA!”

As a verbatim Mirror Application introduction, I present False Sincerity, all in accord, confirmed facts of which are Inside – Man. Here are some previews:

Ex January 25, 2007, 10:30:45 -0800, MJB, after stealing, with Brad, verbatim:
:
Hey man hows it hangin? How is it living with your nina? You working? Florida was OK, I dont think I would go back. I am thinking about moving to New York. Did you like the CD that carrie made?
…
To answer MBJ’s question, the CD Carrie made was slop, a disgrace to the Rose, given the available resources. It shall be used as a sample, for compare & contrast purposes, side by side with a professional job I shall have done. Carrie agreed to with Michael & Bradley to not to spend a couple grand of my money for my Rose, instead keeping it, without permission. This again confirms how very little to zip (support & memory wise) Rose’s princess daughter viewed her own mom. In my view, anyone that told you to contrary was untruthful, like the entire Munoz team (with the sole exception being Anthony Munoz)! Thanks for allowing me the chance to be honest, unlike some.

Now, I also thank you for providing me with good & plenty of materials in my Robin & Dr. Phil presentation about “IT”, which I was personally invited to present!

Today is 02-02-08. For the record, you know that Denise’ friend Emanuel, who worked at Tehachapi, checked up on me, silently. He reported exactly what I did while there:

A) Kept solo by enlarge;
B) Wrote, Read & took lots of notes; &
C) Worked out a lot, running 4-8 miles a day.

These facts, my Queen B, were my program across the board while I was in protective custody. You knew this because I shared this with you & a few others. And I shared with you the fact that by working for .13 cents an hour I earned the minimum good behavior release date for the last leg of my tour, which was July 21, 2006. That fact always has been black & white.

Next, knowing my unbendable release date, you calculated to erase my presence from my Rose’s ceremony because you did not want anyone to know that you perpetrated a major Condo money crime – especially not Rose’s friends in Solvang. Unlike you, her friends I was close with. Again, the Rose orally instructed you, Queen B, to hold her ceremony at a time when “everyone,” meaning I, could be present. Owing to your Condo/proceeds crimes, you spat on the Rose’s oral instruction & me. Worse, you spread this lie to those who inquired about IT:

A) He isn’t going to get out for a really long time (Before excuse/lie); &
B) I didn’t think he might get out on his scheduled release date (After lie).

The above facts known, I shift back to the root of what triggered your series of written & oral personal attacks on me. After you perpetrated an open & shut fraud on Ms. Erin Daniels (E.D.), behind my back, about who the Condo ownership, I understood exactly why you conceal from me, in breach of your fiduciary duty, every single document in connection with that fraud transaction. I understood exactly why you conceal from me the bank, ban deposit & withdraw slips on my proceeds, & continue to deny my papers, in really bad breach.

Knowing the above, disappointed, I understood exactly why you & your prince Brad O’Husky’s waxed me from under our 5122 Via Castilla roof right after you falsified docs & wired the cash to yourselves only (summer ’05), then offered me $500 of my own cash to leave. Only because of what you & your man did is exactly why you both kicked me out from under our roof during my short stay with you. I was with you before you did it. After, you booted me, like a stray cat. The date lines do not lie. Owing mainly to your Condo Crimes there existed an unspoken tension during the short time I was with you. Yes, you held all the cards; I was broke & broken. You converted 100% of my money, denying me a single penny. Deeming me help less, you gutted me, assisted by P, J, J & J Munoz all backing you 100%, which shocks me.

Next, your crew told me that I “needed help,” like cats, but failed to offer any, failing to explain what I needed help with, in your view. I suggested kin counseling, you all refused. I have secured lots of psychological plus, about IT. My court is about ready for IT, which is how I shall address your crimes – criminal & civil, owing to your wicked denial plus, ongoing. I find that a sad waste of energy & resources, but, on principle, I stand at this point, which is a direct result of, in my view, you, all in accord, complicit in unspeakable acts, marked in my U-Files!

Last, my short family album is just about ready to share with my Rose’s Solvang friends. After that, I shall have it prepared for my Bonas nephews & niece when they turn 18. The formal aspect of it & thereafter, will add to a great family reality history record, don’t you think?

G

The facts here are simple. Before being diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer, the Rose did not have complete mental faculties, & she definitely did not after that diagnosis & additional treatment rounds in fall 2005. Before diagnosis & Chemo poison injections, in a lucid state, in ’04 I expressly explained to the Rose that IF she desired any of her personal effects (Ring, Bracelets, Necklaces, dimes, etc.) to go to any one in particular, she should jot it down & sign it. She expressly declined that, saying she desired her estate to go equally to her kids – no one else (simple in-testate succession).

Here, in a weakened, vulnerable state, literally on her death-bed, Carrie at her side, episodically, like I witnessed her do before, said to the Rose, verbatim, “I want the ring, for Rachel.” “I want the bracelets, for Rachel.” “I want ….” “I want….” “I want …” “May I have….” “May I have….” As a result of Carrie’s “I want I want” undue influence to come up, the Rose naturally acquiesced to Carrie’s begging & I have no doubt that many a Mocos Munoz heard her parrot her begging daughter’s words, while on drugs saying, verbatim: I want Rachel to have the Rock & Gold Band.

The fact is that in ’04 I too could have exercised selfish influences, the “I want, I want, I want” tactics, like Carrie. I did not. If I had, however, I would have done it right, securing the Rose’s item identification & signature, as opposed to Carrie’s sloppy “the Rose said” excuses, which I have no doubt she did in fact say, on her death bed. The fact, however, remains – there is no will. The legal reality is that there is no “gift” of anything from a double transplant anti-rejection & depressant dependent diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer, weighing in at 65 lbs. max, with a Carrie begging her for a rock/band, to come up, to satiate her selfish desires.

Next, the two Rock Ravens expressly told me, by acts: The Rose specifically instructed us to insure that Cash was not at her ceremony, unlike the delay arrangements the Rose made for Cash’s biological father, insuring all kids had the chance to be present.

The fact you lie & admit at the same time is that the Rose “wished” me to be present at her ceremony, which the Rock Ravens crossed. The fact is the Rose wished for her remains (or some of them) to be sprinkled in Hawaii, a place she loved. The fact is her estate had plenty to grant those wishes, which were &/or have been, to date, disrespected by the Rock Ravens.

Shifting Joanne Munoz told me that she, who is not next of kin, decided to take possession of & keep the Rose Remains because she doesn’t like the rule which clearly states that IT goes to ME, owing to the fact that un-stable Carrie is not competent to handle those & other affairs. Health and Safety Code section 7100 provides in pertinent part as follows:

“(a) The right to control the disposition of the remains … vests in …:
“(3) … the majority of the surviving competent adult children. . . .
“(e) be faithfully and promptly performed. . . .”

Here, a non-heir took & keeps the remains plus, violating … [my] clearly enumerated rights. At this point, in light of My Ex Kin Files A-Z, it is more than just a little over the line.

I swear under penalty of perjury to the facts I am first hand witness to, stated above.

01-23-08 G

Denial is a universal defense ploy in which one is faced with a fact that is too painful to acknowledge, so one rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite overwhelming factual evidence. The subject may deny by dodging the reality of the unpleasant supreme law & facts altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is pivotal to the study of [money, control & liability] addictions.

The fact of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud, who classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind (like Juan & Arminta), because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with exposure, liaiblity, embarrassment, ego & so forth. Denial of unwanted realities is a universal reality, as when one is informed of the close death, a first reaction is, “No! It can’t be true, when obviously it can be true!

The general existence of denial is fairly easy to verify, even for non-specialists. On the other hand, denial is one of the most common defensive excuse mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create excuses: anything the subject says or does that some might believe to excuse misbehavior is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter is wrong, but as the subject’s being “in denial.”

A commonly-cited example of spurious denial is the psychologist who insists, against all [the rules &] evidence, that his patient, e.g., is homosexual [like James & Adam]: any attempt by the patient to disprove the theory (as by saying he’s not & that he desires women) is evidence of denial and thus evidence of the underlying theory. This tension can become serious, especially in areas such as child abuse and recovered memory. Proponents often respond to allegations of false memory by asserting that the subjects are genuine victims who have reverted to denial. Critics reply (some seriously, some less so) that it is the proponents in denial about the tenuousness of their position.

The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs, where the abandonment or reversal of denial forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps. The ability to deny or minimize is an essential part of what enables an addict to continue his or her behavior in the face of evidence that, to an outsider, appears overwhelming. This is cited as one of the reasons that compulsion is seldom effective in treating addiction — the habit of denial remains.

Understanding and avoiding denial is also important in the treatment of various [money & lialiby] diseases. Because the symptoms are identifiably varied, by verbal & non-verbal explanations, the opportunity exists for the patient to deny the emergency, often with big consequences. Just like it is common for patients to delay mammograms, e.g., or other tests because of a fear of cancer, even though this is clearly maladaptive. It is the responsibility of the care team, and of the nursing staff in particular, to train at-risk patients to avoid such behavior.

Types of Denial Excuses

Denial of Supreme Rules: Intestate succession, Price Right Protocol, parent partnership support formulas, Labor Code 351 (Managers Stealing tips), Article 3 Standing Elements & so forth.

Denial of fact: This form of denial is where someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details in order to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as “yesing” behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies in order to avoid facts that they think may be potentially painful to themselves or others.

Denial of responsibility: This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by blaming, minimizing or justifying. Blaming is a direct statement shifting culpability and may overlap with denial of fact. Minimizing is an attempt to make the effects or results of an action appear to be less harmful than they may actually be. Justifying is when one makes a choice and attempts to make that choice look okay due to their perception, in liue of the rules, of what is “right” in a situation. Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.

Denial of impact: Denial of impact involves a person avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms their behavior causes of has caused themselves or others. By doing this, that person is able to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent that person from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

THE “I DIDN’T KNOW” DENIAL EXCUSE

Denial of awareness: This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness, i.e., “I didn’t know” or were in a self induced intoxicated ed state. This type often overlaps with denial of responsibility.

Denial of cycle: Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, “it just happened.” Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).

EVERYONE DOES “IT” EXCUSE
DENIAL OF RULES & RESPONSIBILITY

Denial of denial: Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one’s personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion.
Hostility & accusation mud slinging, to shift the focus from the facts & rules, is a form … denial in psychology.

Here I mark Joanne Munoz, to illustrate, in the context of My Ex Kin fact & rule files, verbatim:

Today is 12-02-07. This is a follow through regarding my estate, which you stole.

When I move, Ex Parte, for and as the receiver, with my log of all speech to you regarding your intentional crimes, one black & white element of the damages you have caused me is my time, which I shall be awarded in addition to the hard cash, about 125K, that you stole from me. Attached Ex. 300 is confirmation of my hourly price, verifying that I in fact set up my JD price by the sole legal price protocol.

Now, to summarize, recall this, from almost a year ago:

Ex Kin memo January 29, 2007, verbatim:

The letters, which are easily attached to a check box negligence complaint, I can edit & verify, because I don’t lie, like you all do by silence. Attached are SOME FACTS – IT IS A CRYSTAL ICE CUBE REMINDER of some facts.

To remind you, mom couldn’t afford to get into a place after the divorce with dad. I, after taking a real estate class at Santa Barbara City college, got her a partner, Aaron Petersen, to go in halves on the condo, an investment for him, & a real home for mom. That thought obviously never crossed your minds, because you are selfish. I did that, all alone. Then I, all alone, bought half out in 1993 before going to law school, forming a partnership as an investment for me, with every penny of spare cash I had from 1993 through 2005 & for a home for my Rose, which contract is documented, as you have known for 14 years.

50% –STRAIGHT UP – ALL MY INVESTMENT

If you think that because your name replaced Aaron’s on the title you became owner, without buying him out, you are flat wrong. I have the contract – I have IT off-title with Aaron Petersen, & I have had it since 1993, our side contract, signed by both of us, because I bought him out when I was 23 years old, for mom & me, not you, as an investment, which you have known for 14 years.

ABOUT HER ESTATE – EVERY SINGLE ITEM

I know exactly HOW IT was supposed to be done. You didn’t do IT, for whatever reason. IT doesn’t matter what mom said, when she was dying, on morphine, painkillers, & marinol. Unless you hid a written will, witnesses by non-interested parties, IT is void & flows through normal channels, here a real simple 1/3, 1/3, /3 – that includes everything, the car (BAD CARRIE), the ring, her jewelry, & every single piece of the very little she had. IT has sentimental value & IT is not Carries & IT is not yours to pick through, point blank. A conversation was owed; you failed.

Naturally, the criminal & civil actions track each other, like in the O.J. case!

By

Buenos Noches Bandits:

Today’s I summary the facts, rule & max criminal exposure relating to the princess Bride’s laundering plus. Simply put, it’s NOT CHO CHEESE:

First, you laundered (denying the source/ownership of) the Condo, marked here:

Ex 12-02-07 – My Off Title Ownership, which you have known for 14 years:

A) In 1993 I bought A.P. out (at 23), for mom/me, not you – my investment

Ex 12-01-07 Bradley & Bride flat stole after consulting with Ant Joanne M.:

A) Exactly one half of, ball park, $250,000 Bradley & his Bride flat stole

Ex 12-19-07 Corrupt Princess Carrie & Bradley Condo Ex

A) I alone, with zip from B.O.’s princess, met every term of my ½ Condo K;

Ex 12-19-07 Dirty Boy Bradley (Coward) & His princess Bride (Mi-Mi)

A) Bradley calculated to secure 100% control of hundreds of thousands of dollars, not one penny of which was his.
B) Brad fraudulently signed property documents, deceiving the buyer (E.D.)
C) To hide the source, he deposited my cash in his name, not a 2 sig account;
D) This way, he thought, I would never see statements identifying his theft.

Ex 12-21-07 Carol K., a lifelong Rose friend, citing reality all (Munoz) know too:

A) I … remember her telling me that you [Cash] had purchased the condo in Solvang with her when she could no longer stay in the house.

In the United States, Federal law provides (in part): “Whoever [Carrie, Bradly & Michael] . . . knowing[ly] . . . conducts or attempts. . . a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity [like the fradulent sale of property & conversion of the proceeds] . . . with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity . . . shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the [money] property involved in the transaction[s], whichever is greater, or imprisonment for twenty years max, or both.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a).

For years know I have been searching deep for faith in my little sis & hubby.

G

Today is 11-24-07. This is a quick thank you for proverbially “co-signing” to insure the preservation of my entire estate, & to thank you for personally sponsoring, for your mom/sister, her proverbial life celebration “re-hearsal.” I am indeed fortunate to have someone as wise as you as a guarantor. I am truly grateful that you have top notch Esquire in your family tree that debriefed you about TRACING my original over 25K solo investment, in addition to my, on average, way over 1/3 support, roughly tripled to about $75K, according to those holding in the owed segregated account.

For the record, this summarizes the transmission numbers & lienable stuff:

In law tracing is a process by which a claimant demonstrates what has happened to his property, identifies its proceeds and those persons who have handled or received them, and asks the court to award a proprietary claim against [lienable land, pension, pay check, car or whatever] property, which is an asset substituted for the original property or its proceeds. Tracing allows transmission of legal claims from the original assets to either the proceeds of sale of the assets OR new substituted assets.

Tracing is ordinarily an equitable remedy, subject to the usual equitable limitations and remedial bars in common law forums, where there are often two concurrent remedies, common law tracing & equitable tracing.

I sure am glad that I made that decision to buy Aaron’s interest in that Condo out, & that I sacrificed my hard earned money & my time getting that deal closed, ongoing. For the record, I ran the numbers prior to doing so, & it just made sense when viewed in connection with the hard cash tax write-offs that could be & were transferred to another land-owner, in exchange for hard cash, which is exactly what my Rose & I did with Aaron P. & B.O. – dollar for dollar – flat! See My Ex Kin Memo 02-02-06 (Trust Acts)

About my condo, someone said to me, “wow, you can get way more than your mortgage payment IF you were to rent it.” I responded, of course I can, & I shall. I get all of that out of the estate when ever it vests, which hopefully won’t be for many, many years to come. I am absolutely fine with deferring my life vacations until later in my life, for me, in part, like you all do – for my Rose, in past part.” Well, it is vested now, fully!

I appreciate your holding, in constructive trust, my cash. And I appreciate your providing me limited access to it, to keep me on a budget. I, however, kindly request that you tender IT ALL, or part, without delay, as my MJB account is very near out & in need of replenishing, so that I may enjoy a festive winter solstice in financial comfort & celebration, like you all! Or perhaps even a vacation (Florida trip?), like you all! I do not require it all now, but I do require good & plenty, like My Blue Book Car Value!

Shifting, I have yet to present my informal presentation to my federal guardians in San Bernardino. Do you have any thoughts on what I should include in that filing? I shall be submitting it in the next 1-2 weeks, for input, if any! If not, that’s O.K too.

Gary

Today is 12-25-07 & this is to summarize a key part of the time line/facts.

First, as I’ve confirmed to you, in black & white, you perpetrated deep bank, buyer & real estate agent fraud in selling the property (639 Roskilde), which never was yours to sell:

Ex 12-23-07 – Just like Joanne Mocos & her “investment property.”

A) 1st, I wrote Aaron & Elsa Marie Petersen a note for 10K at 10%;
B) 2nd, (‘98) I wrote A & M P. a 2nd note for “out of pocket, & interest;
C) I met every term of both my 1st & 2nd with A&MP, to the absolute “T”.

You were on actual notice of both contract deals, because I told you. You chose to have no part of either of those contracts, because that would have required some Cash contribution on your part & working perhaps a bit harder for the cash, Lazy boy Brad. Your vacations were more important. Like your little brother’s 5 star vacations (MJB).

Ex 11-24-07 – The difference between “renting IT & the mortgage – 400-600 a Mo.

About my condo, someone said to me, “wow, you can get way more than your mortgage payment IF you were to rent it.” I responded, of course I can, & I shall. I get all of that out of the estate when ever it vests, which hopefully won’t be for many, many years to come. I am absolutely fine with deferring my life vacations until later in my life, for me, in part, like you all do – for my Rose, in past part.” Well, it is vested now, fully!

I sure am glad that I made that decision to buy Aaron’s interest in that Condo out, & that I sacrificed my hard earned money & my time getting that deal closed, ongoing. For the record, I ran the numbers prior to doing so, & it just made sense when viewed in connection with the hard cash tax write-offs that could be & were transferred to another land-owner, in exchange for hard cash, which is exactly what my Rose & I did with Aaron P. & B.O. – dollar for dollar – flat! See My Ex Kin Memo 02-02-06 (Trust Acts)

YOU STOLE MY HARD CASH WRITE-OFF AS IF YOU OWNED IT

Shifting, about your rush to erase my presence & voice from you, your circle & my Solvang circle, in a clumsy effort to hide your major crimes, you calculated to hold my Rose’s ceremony just before my expressly scheduled to be released from the last round of my tour:

Your X-Me date: 06-06 (Proof attached)
My Release date: 07-06 (Proof attached)

When K.O. directly confronted you with this fact, you lied to her & all others involved, saying, verbatim, “Oh, Katherine doesn’t know what she is talking about. You published that lie script to very specific people, with Joanne Mocos, in concert!

Next, about my diamond you stole, pretending because Bradley can’t afford one, if you watch the move “Blood Diamond” it may change your artificial desires (Joanne Mocos 30K.K.)!

Lastly, do you want to deliver my Honda to me by January 3, 2008, to mitigate your undeniable treble damages plus, or shall I continue doing exactly what Bradley & Michael expressly told me to do, “get help,” meaning, to me, bring others up to speed on the rules & facts?

Cc: Nancy Petersen (The full CD, Fully “Cash” loaded)