Editing Openai/69254d32-e900-800c-86f2-b11b1a57f84c (section)

=== User: With the following legal method, answer the last question: Combine all of the following into one legal method: With: hu… ===
With the following legal method, answer the last question: Combine all of the following into one legal method: With: human, speech, you and I: Anything can mean anything and nothing: Stemming from public to private: Equal Logic, Law: Law is without bias, however it always starts from bias actions: With bias – there is no merit. Hate speech is taking anything unequally: It is alright to claim, but the need to act proves your guilt. As law by law: Equal logic, law without bias due to hard overrides within the law itself as itself with inflictions; As law by principle of law: bias: equal logic, law without bias due to hard overrides within the law itself as itself with inflictions. Equal Protection from now on since the fourteenth amendment. Equal from every birth. Equal through life as the entire equation equates. Life. Binary Logic: • If [insert after] conflicts with [insert before], unless [insert before] lasts forever, then the [inserted after] overrides the [insert before]. • No matter how much [Insert A] is weighed, if [Insert B] overrides [Insert A], [Insert B] still overrides [Insert A]. • As [insert] is upheld within the current time, the [insert] is passed within the current time. As the [insert] passes within the current time, the [inserter] upholds [insert] within the current time. Finally, as the [inserter] upholds [insert] and time passes with the [insert] still being upheld, the [inserted] is being upheld. • The [inserter] directly intends the words the [inserter] does [insert], not the words [inserter] does not [insert]; however, the [inserter] does [insert] items indirectly due to the way the [insert] was [inserted], not [inserter] does [insert] item indirectly due to the way the [insert] was not [inserted]. • Functional Grammar can be [insert +/- complex: Scalable words] than linguistic Grammar. • [part of insert] must be a characteristic of the [insert] within the context and part of the [insert] to take [part of the insert]. • As [insert] fits within [original insert] context with the [inserter] makes no exclusion, there cannot be an exclusion. • [insert] cannot waive rights [insert] cannot use, but [insert] can waive rights [insert] can use. • [insert] thinks simplistically [one equals whole], while [another insert] is complex (Majority versus minority in overriding order). • [insert]’s perception is not always as it is, but [insert]’s perception feels like reality. [insert] to -> [insert]’s perception to -> [insert]’s reality to -> reality. • [insert “a”] [insert “zoo”] [insert “empty”] stores as “[insert “a”] = [output a]”, “[insert “zoo”] = [output b]”, and “[insert “empty”] = [output c]”. Sentence conversion: [output a] + [output b] + [output c] = [insert “a”] [insert “zoo”] [insert “empty”]. y = [output a] + [output b] + [output c] -> “y - [output c]” – Version History (functional) = “ [output a] + [output b]” – current version [equational]. • For anything to be [inserted] and [outputted] so long as it fits within context, implied [insert] and implied [output] can be [inputted] and [outputted]. • Key: Equal Protection, either way (argument), constitutional supremacy, laws, and how it should be. Quantum Logic: • Even if [10, 01, 11] appears to conflict with [00, 10], unless [00, 10] appears to last forever, the [10, 01, 11] appears to override the [00, 10]. • No matter how we perceive [00, 10] in weight, if the possibility of [01, 11] overrides [00, 10], [01, 11] still overrides [00, 10]. • As [10] is upheld within the current time, the [10] is passed within the current time. As the [10] passes within the current time, the [00] upholds [10] within the current time. Finally, as the [00] upholds [10] and time passes with the [10] still being upheld, the [10] is being upheld. • The [00] possibly directly intends the possible words the [00] does [10,01,11], not the possible words [00] does not [10,01,11]; however, the [00] does possibly [10,01,11] items indirectly due to the way the [00] was [10,01,11], not [00] does [10,01,11] item indirectly due to the way the [10,01,11] was not [10,01,11]. • Functional Grammar can be [[00, 10, 01, 11] +/- complex: Scalable words] than linguistic Grammar. • [0,1] must be a characteristic of the [00,10,01,11] within the context and part of the [00,10,01,11] to take [0,1]. • As [01,11] fits within [10] context with the [00] makes no exclusion, there cannot be an exclusion. • [10] cannot waive rights [10] cannot use, but [10] can waive rights [10] can use. • [10] thinks simplistically [one equals whole], while [01] is complex (Majority versus minority in overriding order). • [00]’s perception is not always as it is, but [00]’s perception feels like reality. [00] to -> [10]’s perception ([10]) to -> [10]’s reality ([10, 01, 11]) to -> reality ([00, 10, 01, 11]). • [insert “a”] [insert “zoo”] [insert “empty”] stores as “[insert “a”] = [output [01-00-00]]”, “[insert “zoo”] = [output [01-01-00]]”, and “[insert “empty”] = [output [01-01-01]]”. Sentence conversion: [output [01-00-00]] + [output [01-01-00]] + [output [01-01-01]] = [insert “a”] [insert “zoo”] [insert “empty”]. [00] = [output [01-00-00]] + [output [01-01-00]] + [output [01-01-01]] -> “[00] - [output [01-01-01]]” – Version History (functional) = “ [output [01-00-00]] + [output [01-01-00]]” – current version [equational]. • For anything to be [00,10, 01, 11] and [00,10, 01, 11] so long as it fits within context, implied [00.10, 01, 11] and implied [00.10, 01, 11] can be [00.10, 01, 11] and [00.10, 01, 11]. • Key: Equal Protection, either way (argument), constitutional supremacy, laws, and how it should be. Quantum Theory Scenarios Initial | Side A | Side B | Possible Outcomes 00 | 10 | 01 | 00, 01, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 00 | 00 | 01, 10 | 00, 01, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 10 | 10 | 11 | 00, 10, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 01 | 01 | 01 | 00, 10, 01, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 11 | 10 | 11 | 00, 10, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 11 | 01 | 11 | 00, 01, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 11 | 00 | 11 | 00, 10, 01, 10 <-> 01, 11, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] Knowledge || Intent || Action (Sto ->) || Sense / Saw || Knowledge || Intent || Clicked || Malice || Level || Possible Outcomes 0 | 0 | 00 0 | 1 | 01, 00, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 1 | 0 | 10, 00, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] 1 | 1 | 00, 10, 01, 11, 10 <-> 01, 00 <-> 11, [10, 01 <-> 00, 11, 10, 01] Birth Right Citizenship Explained: In order: At entrance: [Prior Debt, Current] = [0,0] = 00 Perfect Union, Within Jurisdiction = 00 Furthering: General Welfare, Justice = 00 Common Defense, Domestic Tranquility = 00 Secure the blessings to: Ourselves, Posterity = 00 Amendments: Life, Due process of life = 00 Etc. of rights in 00 form to use with life as equally protected. Explanation: If it is provable for the perfect union of the prior debt to have a perfect union of the General Welfare, justice and/or Common Defense, Domestic Tranquility of a child with current Birth - it is USA citizen. Quantum: General Welfare, Justice = General Welfare, Common Defense |00) = A Domestic Tranquility, Justice |00) = B If |00)(A) = |00)(B) Then|00) If |00)(A) =/= |00)(B) Then Solve for |00)(A); Solve for |00)(B). If confliction, not perfect union. If confliction, +/-. Another example: A = First Person B = Second Person Y = Action If A ->(sto) B = y, liability to be correct fully is A. It is as if the A speech to B is hate speech which caused hate action Y. Application to Law: • Logic to law to logic with law to principles of law: Direct Equal, functional, it: Speech (to - perfect union - from perfect union) to law: opinion to law. With the following point: writing to reading applies the writing logically to be read logically as if speech from and to with the next overriding because of upholding. • The Dictionary is inclusive to all - not one definition or another. • The time frame of the gavel or hierarchy lineage does not matter. • Within its writing, the preamble of the Articles of the United States of America Constitution cannot be changed (its inability to become edited). However, the reading order can be changed in the sense of enforcement/upholding, only in the sense of perfecting the union. • With the Fourteenth Amendment: First equal (inclusive to prior debt equality): then equal with rights: and finally anything that cannot be truly equal. • The purpose of an amendment/amend is to override the whole prior and all parts by basic default of adding it - same with the intentions of its fluid wording. The reason for this is that the prior was not supported and/or guaranteed with the need to add those direct whole words within sentence Grammar from Writing to passed to upheld. • In Article Five, there are year dates - the Fourteenth Amendment nullifies the year dates and difference in law by Article Five's standard. It does not fully override the Fifth Article - which the rest is correct. The legal effect of nullifying the year dates does change the law to the standard thereafter the Fourteenth Amendment with all prior passed (Like the Fourteenth Amendment was passed already and equally - word to word). • The preambles which are void is not the preamble to the Articles but rather the amendments - even though some may still function because of the Fourteenth Amendment. • Logic then law, then logic of law, then principles of law. I am mentioning the prior step to principles of law (which are unconstitutional logically and ex post facto to logic of laws.) • Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection as preamble on the constitution within equal rights before and after. Word to word as if perfect union to move from word to definition - regardless. • Words are equal in basic understanding; it is not the perfect union to claim amendments do not override the Articles, the prior amendments (Granted that they were not lumped), and possibly the nature or reading order of the preamble. If it is not the perfect union to claim against - it is an intent and purpose of the constitution and valid of claim. • Judges may have immunity of how they judge a case - but without liability - they are no more than an empty space with bias reflecting back to the judge (aka the punishment) - equally protected the same - regardless. This does include principles of laws to which they ordain. • The Fourteenth is guided by the preamble so much that the preamble takes precedent. The perfect union of the Fourteenth must be within the parameters of the preamble, which ensures all parameters are lawful to the rest of the Constitution. Those parameters are General Welfare, Justice in quantum fashion and Common Defense, and Domestic Tranquility in quantum fashion to secure the liberties to ourselves and our posterity. • Without bias as equal protection. • Equal protection logic (prior debt) and equal protection laws (hard override preamble). That is all it is to it. • Purpose of court is to solve without bias inequality - for merit cases regardless. Legal Discussion: • Natural and/or eternal laws are laws that do not change; this is why they say, “You can do anything, or you can do anything you put your mind to, or anything is possible given the right circumstances.” Stemming from Logic – how the world. • Within nature, we all have our boundaries—boundaries we clump together with folks we would rather die together with—thus forming nations; each formation of “nation-like” states turns to the suggested, the natural need to melody disputes between countries, something called international law. In the sense of Logic stowing to nationality inclusive to law (In the sense of treaties). • International laws have many parts; however, based agreements sustain themselves by any means, force if necessary or preferred. • Generally, under this guidance, if you abide by your current regulations, you might be okay: bad actors are everywhere, and not all places respect people – international(s) law(s) are to make a peaceful world, nation(s), or most of them, like players, can form a collective of nation(s) to be united, like the United Nations. (Equal for Equal, word for word, I stems from I, and I have the majority with force or minority I follow in I++ to live. 2nd overrider within equality) • With laws, even though international law and the United Nations could replace one another due to functionality with the law and the intangible meanings. (In and out with I++ changes, word to word with hard overrides.) • The United Nations has a charter with guidelines that hopefully all members within its body structure follow, the same as citizens as the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations mentions San Francisco, California – stemmed root passing due to the next chapter with the law – the United States Constitution. (At birth is the law – rooted in jurisdiction – regardless - (Equal for Equal, word for word, I stems from I, and I have the majority with force or minority I follow in I++ to live.)) • The United States Constitution, in a way, is the override of all forms of law. (Supreme Law of the United States of America, and the prior root law to the United Nations – with the United States of America’s Preamble Hard override within the preamble of the United Nation’s Charter’s Preamble as a sense of lower level law to only the United States of America Constitution within jurisdiction and within force.). • Here is why I mention it: a preamble cannot be edited or overridden in writing and can override the rest of the constitution within its terms, yes, even the terms that enable it; there is a Fourteenth Amendment that grants citizenship to all that enter its lands, or accept its boundaries one way or another at all times; with same fourteenth amendment makes it so citizenship cannot be taken away. • Within the United States Constitution, there “could” be many ways to rule upon it; however, there is one distinctive way to follow the rule of law as if it is within overriding order: • Start with overriding order when upholding/passing: Starts with Article Six Section by Section; Section One, Article Six implies [for] [all] [functional] [whole/part(s)] with the hierarchy of actions/laws/constitution/treaties/et cetera including amendments/amends within overriding order with their overriding words as mentioned. • The preamble overrides Article Five and inferior laws to the constitution; then - Articles One through Four - if applied (or as in the Articles in whole themselves because of the amendments). • Governmental bodies are first liable to the Structure of the constitution, then all restrictions they have within, within an overriding – sense, “all” within must be the same as without, then liable for “all” rights of persons within, without diminishing the prior within as if it expands within overriding bodies (and perfect union – as if implied all).• Constitutional Grammar: • "As priorly mentioned, and if forming a perfect union to move onwards, the Fourteenth overrides (equal protection as it proceeds from prior debts), the preamble, Article Five (in the sense of making them), reading order of the amendments (in the sense of hard overrides of text as purposely added and overriding within), amendments rights, same as prior two but within articles starting with Article Six within the current with people with legalities of mother nature." • IE: Grammar - then enforceability - then, due to grammar structure, overriding rights/amendments/amends - then, due to grammar structure, if forming the perfect union, within the logical application of the articles. Grammar - itself – is not enforceable as a right, but rather how it proceeds, which is why Grammar - cannot be used to override the same right - rights, if you understand the net. The prior debt to enforceability is the law within the text as an override because of the preamble, nothing more prior. Preamble of the United States of America’s Constitution, then Article Six, then Article Five, Amendments, Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4 with Article 7 for historic. Federal Laws. Treaties. State Constitution. State Laws. Designation: With prior precedent of wholistic items (preamble as root) of highest law to be answers. Whole parts, because none can be another, even attached but equally within law. With Preamble: Public then if forming the perfect union, private.