There are several groups/people,

or more, in growth,

fronting Steve's propaganda,

 

and aiming for my destruction.

 

My goal is not then working with the States.

It is self-preservation I must aim for.

 

I do not trust Mr Musk.

His aim, despite all these supports,

can turn destructive in an instant as he sees an 'opportunity' fronting doubt.

As you have seen.

 

You set me into a trap if you do not eliminate the threat.

And you expect me to work with you?

 

"

CAN a person work as the building is on fire?

No you get out of the building,

extinguish the fire,

then you catch the arsonists.

Then you go back to work.

"

 

And when I say to "catch" the arsonists.

I do not mean simple incarceration.

Some fires are designed to kill.

To obliterate.

That intent must be weighed for.

That is why the capital punishment is just.

But especially as it creates fires in the now.

 

 

Try exploring that idea of "some fires are designed to kill."

If you lock people into a building,

welding the exits, the doors, so it does not open.

As the fire expands.

 

Wholly exploiting that situation.

 

Does it sound familiar to my situation?

And this isn't intended, attempted murder?

 

I am saying, it is exploitation knowing I am alone, blind, and locked into this situation.

Whilst aware of the destruction that would follow, per category of my life.

That would render me obsolete, prospects gone, to accept dangers by the law.

And that aim continues.

 

 

Rest of these idiots refuting my logic is the same.

You assert prejudice as a base for crimes to get away,

even as you know it is impossible.

 

How do I work with mass hysteria and deliberate criminal negligence?

 

 

Ambiguities 'remaining' should NOT be subjective to your preference, when the intent for destruction is clear. How many times do I assert this fact?

That is the eyes of the law.

 

But you insist.

At whose expense?

 

As the intent continues, under that impossible scale of lies by the numbers it asserts?

Do you see my logic?

If it says few as theft, you may try and listen as an individual possibility of theft.

But when the nature of it is mass a theft, and you know it is logically impossible,

no individual ideas it frames me for, can be remaining as an ambiguity by the eyes of the law.

 

Do you get this?

 

ALL is a lie,

as its individual targeting of ideas,

is UNDER the idea of the impossibility of mass amount of theft.

 

And you would still front its creation of doubt?

 

That is called personal preference.

That is NOT the law.

 

 

Presidency? Or some sort of senate position? Job as CEO?

Don't make me laugh, as i am aware i'm only but a pawn for your political, economic gain.

Why am I not seeing justice?

All you see is greed, as you value this fucker who is trying to kill me in repeat.

As the intent is clear.

 

It's nothing personal, from your perspective.

Nor is that even in your awareness perhaps swayed by their misleads.

 

But is dangers I endure that is personal to me. So it becomes personal.

My reaction as statement reflects on to that.

So I myself, towards you, whomever hold the power, is nothing personal.

 

But my logic is sound and clear.

 

"god says chosen one humble yourself before i humble you."

really?

when i am free, he should not be.

there is no in-between unless you insist on cycle of conflict.

when it played a zero-sum game and that is clear,

capital punishment is justice.

 

i am speaking humbly.

not carnage. at least this moment.

 

but i do not think you are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you insist on building stay on fire.

What other reason is there for then your intent to see it incinerated over time?

 

Do you see my obvious logic?

 

What do you think is your order of priority is?

 

 

I think that you are all confused.

And few setting a trap for the future.

Not the authorities.

But others foresee complications arising.

 

Don't be thinking I would be allured at the prospect of power to expose myself and my loved ones to dangers.

 

That is the whole point of this court.

To catch the offender claiming I am suicidal, as I am fearful of the exploitation of the law.

As I am protecting myself.

 

Is its assertion of theft, spread out in this duration, to that mass a number, reasonable,

AT ALL? Without a foresight, and as a group?

 

And knowing that obvious unreasonable force,

and as its attempts continue.

 

You don't charge it the way you should.

That lethal intent to destroy a life and pursuit of.

 

So how may I help you?

How can I work with you?

As you willing expose me to dangers?

 

i am sorry, this is not an accusation of intent by the authorities.

it is an accusation of confused priorities and swayed by misdirection,

as the facts are clear.

There should be no leniency on Steve.