Seeing "all scenes with Steve Rogers with Peggy Carter"

if I am not wrong, he is being favored.

Why is this? After the crime he's done?

Why would you help this person?

I keep seeing the "I got beat up in that alley."

I never fought him physically.

That is how it should have began if it were.

Never fought him physically.

So I don't know who "Peggy Carter" is,

but you must seek the details.

I never deserved this, from this person.

Soured friendship or not,

I was generally nice to this person, helping.

 

Have someone collect and print out,

everything he and his brother did since then.

And the public's reaction to that.

They must be charged in accordance to the law.

 

And forget the supportive deceit.

If there is good, there would only be good.

To mix it in with the bad, is only to create a permissive portal for itself.

See all the harm that persisted following.

No, I am sorry but you do not have the right to dismiss his actions.

I, as a victim, have the right to fully charge him on the matter.

Because there was no cause and effect, correct give and take.

I would recede my stance if it were.

And in the eyes of the law, you do not have the evidence of cause and effect either.

You can't just 'listen' to his slander as evidence.

I have never 'beat up' this person.

He/they must be charged for their actions.

 

On the emails, on my pointing out his mischief,

sometimes I was wrong on it, in my verification.

But sometimes it was completely correct.

It was his deliberate attempt.

Eventually, the maintenance person came in to 'fix' the door, as I recall.

He shaved the sides so that there would be less friction when closing.

But that wasn't the reason.

As I slept, he deliberately bang the door and ran out (up the stairs) to work many times.

However, it was still mischief.

And hence why I am sending emails instead of fighting him directly.

When it is repeating, no matter what you say.

You don't try and intimidate the person. You try and leave records.

And you can clearly see his behavior in that channel.

It is relentless, without remorse, constantly repeating, is it not?

There was this the same, in the house.

Though his actions were mild.

There was that sinister factor as well, asking me about the origins of the ideas.

And then he attempted theft, following.

His exploitation of prejudice, and that prejudice, was no prank either.

And hence why it is a exploitation as well. Because the prejudice was real.

To exploit by subjugation, by using gay slurs and threats.

With a goal in mugging.  That is a hate crime.

Then following running off to the States, to continue pursuit of that prejudice.  

And distoring my credits deliberately following up on my work.

That is the same thing, continued from where he began, just changing form.

And relentlessly on pursuit.

They can't get away with all this.

 

So in repeat:

He has lied many times prior.  (1)

And on the matter of 'getting beat up' by myself.

 My challenge was dismantled and he agreed, didn't someone say so?  (2)

Further, he was deliberately asserting the wrong timeline, wrong evidence, did he not? (3)

And admitted to our first meeting, first incidence, that there no physical fights before as well, did he not? (on my helping him with library genesis 6 times as he requested) (4)

So all this is continued pursuit of harm.

They must be charged for their actions.

At this point, he is playing a zero sum game. This is called 'framing'.

And this too, is a dire offense, and from my end, it is an attack.

And the law must see this from the victim's perspective.

Which is myself.

When all evidence points out to his slander, and framing.

And there are no evidences of me having physically hurt this person,

then it must backfire on him.

You cannot use slander as evidence to his claims.

The worst I have done was yelling, driven, cursing, angry.

Which was witnessed by few within the house.

And it ended there and then. (About me helping him out 6 times in a row at his request,

and only to be met with rudeness)

It's not a topic you can physically fight someone for.

You can certainly express yourself, but not to fight him physically for it.

As all was just verbal. Cause and effect do not make sense if he is misleading on that as well.

I got angry as I was getting out of the room, and angry alone, outside of it. Venting.

Because of this person's impossible mannerism. This blatant rudeness like bullying.

As you have witnessed in the channel, his behavior.

I was furious. But it remained as expression, it never progressed further than that.

And several years after, we reconciled, as his mannerisms seem to have changed,

and became 'friends' in the house. As I moved downstairs where he was and spoke about

what was going on (with the monitoring).

 

 

Was he not also blaming his 'schizophenia' as involuntary offense prior? Another contradiction. Along with other excuses. (5)

 

When a person is beyond the correct give and take. And it turns everything
into exploitation and hostility. This person poses a danger to society.

He's certainly been an relentless harm on my life.

And I have the right to not drop charges on this person.

The give and take was not only incorrect, but above and beyond.

 

Please know that all that he is doing, is defamation and framing.

How am I suppose to live a life like this?

 

When a person is relentlessly on pursuit to destroy your life in every possible permutation?

Please collect and print out what he's done thus far, these years.

And please see what can be the potential outcome of his statements and harassment.

Then you will see his goals.

And that means ill on my life. He targets, constantly.

 

Trudeau must be charged for his pursuit of oppression, taking my rights.

Trying to convince his board and getting votes, was theft in progress.

I am completely dismissed? My earnings, my ideas.

What is wrong these people?

 

And if you the Royal family is protecting Trudeau, why?

Why King Charles. I am seeing "Hogwarts" relay,

with "If you use Avada Kedvra on students of Hogwarts".

etc. I apologize if my assumption is wrong,

but what this person did was asserting control.

 

I would better understand if you the Royal family was accepting on my behalf.
(Which I cannot approve, as it should be mine and all I owe are the taxes)

But this is the prime minister, taking the rights of his own *citizen by justifying his oppression.

That is clearly a crime. Against charter of freedom. And exploitation of rights.

But what he's attempted doing, he can't get away with this.

 

Note that it doesn't matter what he says the ultimate motives were.

It is about the act itself. To control. Against someone's will (even after it was clearly stated) (1),

and finding ways to oppress someone's rights (gathering votes). (2)

and even by attempting insurrection (citing tax evasion when I was speaking in public display about the matter and to discuss this with proper advisors once I am free, which is in my right,
clearly stating all I owe are the taxes applicable in accordance to the law)

(3)

however, he acted as the law, and even stated the AMOUNT of the taxes in his control as well. (4)

All these pursuit of harm, persistence, without respecting an individual's rights,

indicates his aim, and manipulation. He must be charged for his actions.

 

Why would anyone be gathering votes, if it wasn't illegal in the first place?
(And behind my back, knowing that I am in the blind)

Ontario income tax law is capped at 33% after it exceeds 250k.
And far lower if incorporated here and accepting money I believe. (I could be wrong on this,
but point is, I have the right to ask details to proper advisors and explore my legal options)

But he suggested 40%+ even after I stated the law, while others would accept it, did he not?

For this person, this is a game, a game of exploitation, and it is permitted in his mind.

This is then a partly crazed person roaming the political landscape in his vanity and power.

He must absolutely be charged for his actions.

 

 

Please watch out for Adam's reasoning. He has no excuses for his actions.

This is a competitive environment, and aiming for each and every individual's ideas

to be invested into business. Knowing the rules, he had no right in hijacking.

He should have also shared the origin of all this, while he has clearly participated

in my personal life, hijacking my ideas. Things he's done was from place of power

(as in leverage over my life because I am in the blind) to navigate through bypassing

punishment through  exploitation of technicality, when morally, it should not be this way.

His intent of malice is clearly visible. In his mind it is 'mischief'. But to the eyes of the victim,

nor the court of law, should not find this control as if it were nothing. I believe I am being fair

on this if my observation is correct.

 

I believe, if I am correct, this is deliberate criminal negligence (1),

it does not matter if he has helped out long, long time ago. When the matter is re-situated and spoken, during all that duration of confusion, he should be responsible for telling the origins when he held the key, when he was directly involved. And this is during,
stalking, for aiming to steal, take placement of my idea, by exploitation of technicality (2)

when all things are actually in the open in a competitive environment, knowing the origins His malice is in the clear I believe. (3).

He had clearly known the origins and my clear statement on the matter that I will not be working with him.

 

The technicality he will state, to dilute his actions,

is different from morality.

And the choice that follows.

And those choices, whether that is negligence or pursuit of harm by hijacking my ideas,

when clearly knowing that the outcome can only hurt me.

Is INTENT.

If the law only explores the technicality he will use to get away with,

and dismisses the morality behind it,

then the law is dismissing his intent I believe.

If the technicality states that he's had a choice, then he is guilty of that intent of that harm.