Okay, we’ve been here a time or two before, but it appears that we must do so yet again.
What happens when legal theory collides with legal fact and the facts are irrefutable and correct? It is in this aftermath of such a collision that the Patrinut community runs into some seriously unstable legal ground. And to make matters even worse, they still choose to build their symbolic legal house that is their legal theory on that same unstable ground. This is as financially suicidal as building a million dollar home over a known unstable sinkhole knowing that you can never get insurance coverage.
Case in point, one “Michael C. School,” who thinks that his understanding of “trust law” is the golden ray of sunshine guaranteed to repel government and its agents on every level, sort of like sunshine, garlic, or holy water to a vampire. There is only one little problem, what do you think the vampire will actually do if you are relying upon a simple flashlight, fake garlic, or regular tap water instead of the real thing?
Well, let’s find out.
Michael C School Jerry Howe The first step i did was in Common Law and created a Poormans Patent on the Testamentary Succession Revocation so the State cant deny my Rights. After i completed that part of the Process, then i filed for the name change in Court.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:45am
Jerry Howe I’m guessing you have already completed a UCC-1 filing with your secretary of state is that correct Michael? So you’re now a Secured Party Creditor?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:49am
Jerry Howe So for what reason(s) are you saying that you did this Michael? In laymans terms?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:53am
Jerry Howe So the state can’t deny your rights to what exactly?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:55am
Jerry Howe Tao Lauw, Randy Neroni, your thoughts or questions on this.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:57am
Michael C School The State cant use presumptive authority against me anymore. A grand jury has to convene with an Indictment signed by a lawful judge. A cop cant just stop me and harrass me unless he witness’s me commit a breach of the peace. UCC-1 is inferior to this by Contract, so no i have not filed a UCC-1 against the all caps name. I rescinded the original contract granting authority to create the Strawman account, which “should” also revoke power of attorney from the IRS all in one step. Filing a UCC-1 would still leave me under Presumptive Authority because Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked from the State. Michael C School From the Office of Michael C. SchoolExecutor of this Instrument
To: Public NoticeI Michael Charles School “One of The People” and also One of the People of the State of California Claim this as the correct spelling of my Lawful Birth Name. The ALL CAPS NAME OF MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL IS A Fictional Entity Negotiable Debt Instrument created by the State without any disclosure to my parents who were the Lawful Guardians and Custodians of my Body and the Executor’s of my Share of the Trust until I reached the age of majority.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
I Hereby Revoke any and all Implied Testamentary Succession privilege The State has acquired without My Consent. The Clean Hands Doctrine applies to all Fiduciaries bound by Oath to Protect the Beneficiary of the Trust which is Michael C. School ONLY. MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL is a DBA Fiction (Doing Business As) This is Usury as Michael Charles School does not operate as a 3rd party fictional re-presentation of the Living Being. Michael Charles School is a Pro Se’ 1st Party Contractor ONLY who uses Written Instruments Lawfully Executed as my “Will.” Article 1 Section 10.1 (Obligation of Contracts cannot be Impaired.)
Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].”
“The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. ”
City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922): “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief.
Executor of this Instrument
Michael Charles School
Autograph Date
Witness
Before me, _____________________________, the subscriber, personally appeared Michael Charles School, to me known to be the Living Soul described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and sworn before me that they executed the same as their own free will act and deed.
Witness Autograph ______________________________ (California Jurat Attached)
Date___________________
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:05pm
Michael C School I believe this is where the Sovereign movement fails as Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked but the Strawman account has been validated by Authenticating the Birth Certificate which i did not do. Yet……
Michael C School This is new ground for me and i believe i have completed it correctly. If i made a mistake anywhere i would appreciate the input so we may have a complete process for Remedy all the faster.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:08pm
Randy Neroni Seems like magic scroll theory to me.The “state ” doesn’t presume anything. It’s officer shitforbrains that makes presumptions and initiates controversy, or takes advantage of potential controversy.
Michael C School Thats a great opinion Randy, but where are your Facts? Officer SFB implements departmental Policy not the Law.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:29pm
Michael C School Tao Lauw Eddie you are a follower not a leader, thats the difference between us. You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law. By your response its obvious that Jurisdictionary is all you got. “People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.”Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)
[But then again Eddie, you have an all caps name on your drivers license as a Debtor not a Secured Party Creditor.] “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
Ohio L. Ins. & T Co. vDebolt, 16 How 416, 14 L. Ed. 997
[Oh but you are a Citizen or Natural Person you say?] “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.”
Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
[Hmm how do i Occupy the Office of the Executor of the Estate as One of the People since i am the Beneficiary of the Trust, not the Surety like Eddie Hmm that sounds like CONTRACT LAW.http://jec.unm.edu/…/online-training/contract-law-tutorial] “Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisos of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840).– FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138 -178) “Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes.–It is abiding truth that “[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court•401 U.S. 222 (1971)“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Terral v. Burke Construction Co.,.
—Royal Indemnity Co. v. Werner, 979 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1992) explains that “A Claimant is damaged upon filing of a complaint.”, “All Codes, Rules and Regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human / Creators in accordance with God’s law. All Codes, Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process as applied to Sherwood T. Rodrigues.” – Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan (US Secretary of Labor) 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)—CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC INFERIORITY habitually misbehave, and have no sense of responsibility to their fellowmen or to society as a whole. These individuals fail to learn by experience and are inadequate, incompatible, and inefficient. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, 300; Wilson v. Walters, Cal.App., 112 P.2d 964.—1983 Caselaw- COLOR OF LAW
Only two allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “First, the Plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). See Tillman v. Coley, 886 F.2d 317, 319 (11th Cir. 1989); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989); Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir. 1989). JOHNSON V. CANNON, (M.D.FLA. 1996)United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division•947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Tao LauwMichael C School – Blah blah blah. One, I DON’T even HAVE a license and haven’t had one for over a decade. I don’t register my cars or anything at all.
So please don’t try to tell me what I have, much less what I know. However, unlike your attempt to make ME look stupid, let’s take a tour of the demonstrable stupidity of your so-called facts in your imbecilic comments:
0) This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have seen in awhile:
“You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law.”
Just what the hell do you think contract, consumer, and business law IS if not STATUTORY Braniac? Pull you head out of your ass, soon, because the lack of oxygen is costing you your precious few remaining brain cells.
1) Your Rodriguez case cite is as fake as your last IQ test. And the fact that you don’t KNOW that proves that your ‘research’ is either moronically sloppy or non-existent.
2) Your Terral cite is ALSO incorrect AND taken COMPLETELY out of context. Here is the full sentence of the cite:
“The principle established by the more recent decisions of this Court is that a state may not, in imposing conditions upon the privilege of a foreign corporation’s doing business in the state, exact from it a waiver of the exercise of its constitutional right to resort to the federal courts, or thereafter withdraw the privilege of doing business because of its exercise of such right, whether waived in advance or not. The principle does not depend for its application on the character of the business the corporation does, whether state or interstate, although that has been suggested as a distinction in some cases.”
Proving once again your Patrinut sucking skills is better than your vetting skills. Here is the ENTIRE opinion just in case you learn to read:
https://supreme.justia.com/…/federal/us/257/529/case.html
3) The Ohio Life Ins. case DOESN’T exist under the cite you have, nor does it exist in similarly named cases. You are now up to four self-inflicted FUBARs in just one comment. But, you seem to enjoy making slanderous comments about others while not doing your own ball-check before stepping into the ring, and now we’re going to see just how well you handle facts over fiction.
4) The CORRECT cite for Lansing is “Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829),” and that case went AGAINST the individual and FOR the corporate state. The proposition of the case was this:
“In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the crown and parliament of England in lands under tide waters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high-water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low-water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad.”
In other words, it DISPROVES your intended implied use of the case in bolstering your so-called position.
5) The Luther case is one that you are ALSO taking out of context and offers no support for your alleged ‘process’ OR ‘paperwork’ methods. The full sentence of THAT cite goes like this:
” No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government and establishing a new one in its place is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.”
As anyone with an IQ higher than the number of ounces in an average can of soda can see, the case is speaking of the unified political body of the people, not one guy that thinks he’s found the way to write his own personal incantations to ward off the state.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html
6) The correct cite for Houston is “Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820),” and guess what, you are using ANOTHER shit-cite. It doesn’t exist in the opinion. So sorry, want a lollipop, ’cause this ass-whoopin’ is about to continue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/
7) On to other non-surprises, your Mapp case cite is as non-existent as your ability to make a winning argument! No such language, implication, inference, or wild fucking guess is to be found in the opinion.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/
Bro’, I could do this ALL day and ALL night, because I totally fucking LIVE to destroy STUPID in all its forms. But, since I believe I have CLEARLY established that you really ARE the fucking moron I only assumed you originally were, I’m not gonna’.
The next time you want to appear intelligent and like you know what the fuck you are even doing on this planet, go talk to a kindergartner, maybe they won’t make you look so fucking stupid if you just stay in your corner of the sandbox.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · · Edited
Dan Bramschreiber ha ha ha he surely hasn’t listened very much or very long.
Like · Reply ·
Michael C School Have you heard of Trust Law? Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].” Juridictionary will only take you so far in life…….
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:30pm
Randy Neroni It is a great opinion. On that we agree.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:33pm
Michael C School Can you show me where i am wrong in the Law?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:34pm
Randy Neroni Yes I can. You ready ?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:35pm
Randy Neroni Who has the burden of proof?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:38pm
Jerry Howe State in a criminal proceeding.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:38pm
Michael C School Ive already rescinded the Contract granting Presumptive Authority to the “State.”
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:38pm
Michael C School I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm
Randy Neroni Can you prove all that stuff you’ve accused yourself of?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:39pm
Michael C School It works in Court
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm
Jerry Howe Saying it works in a court and proving it did are two different things I’m looking for the proof.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:41pm
Randy Neroni It’s all false witness. False witness against self is still false witness.
Why anyone still attempts to prove anything in a venue where he cannot prove any claim he makes, is beyond me.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:43pm
Michael C School Lol! I posted my Doc’s as you requested and i am a firsthand witness. I have a Counter-Plaintiff Complaint template, just got to find it and i will post it. Defendant is the Surety. Counter-Plaintiff is a Beneficiary.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:43pm
Michael C School Randy do you understand Precedence and Precedent are not one and the same?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:44pm
Randy Neroni I understand what file your documents are going.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:46pm
Jerry Howe I saw you docs Michael. Interesting they are, but they are not evidence in and of themselves that you have gained some sort of advantage or remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:47pm
Jerry Howe Let’s create an example scenario for the documents use.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:50pm
Randy Neroni I’ve seen people try to argue this stuff to a judge that I know was giggling on the inside.
He was so encouraging though. He’d say “so how is it that the statutes don’t apply to you?”.
He’d listen to the whole thing and then say “that’s your opinion, the court disagrees. What else you got? “.
Must have been a slow day and they were bored.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:52pm
Jerry Howe So, say your local county court issues a warrant for your arrest for failure to appear on a traffic violation/summons issued by a sheriffs deputy. Let’s say that warrant is issued in the all caps name. Does this name change thing mean you can just ignore the warrant? Is that what you’re saying Michael C School?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:55pm
Jerry Howe Does it mean that if you are arrested on that warrant that they have the wrong guy?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:57pm
Jerry Howe Really Michael, I’m just trying to ascertain what verifiable advantage or remedy you propose to get out of this name change. Because unless there is some advantage or remedy to be gained from it, than it seems to me your time would be much better spent studying the use of Title 42 so that you can get remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 1:22pm · Edited
Tao LauwTick, tock, tick, tock… methinks he hid beneath a rock.
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Michael C School I have 4 kids and a life, Eddie, Randy Neroni why dont you guys debate me on the air? Randy Dees with the Wake Up Mission or Randy Shannon with 42 Action. 1983 is great if you like inferior Jurisdiction. Pro Se’ is the best position to bring forth a Title 42 1981 action. You are unlimited in your ability to CONTRACT. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981 Tick Tock Eddie
42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by wh…
law.cornell.edu
Like · Reply ·
Randy Neroni Debate you about what exactly?
Like · Reply ·
Michael C School There’s more to Law than you think. Do you know how to enforce your Rights and create your own enforceable Contract?
<Link to more Patrinut bullshit removed in the interest of public safety>
Like · Reply ·
Randy Neroni You know what I know and think?
Like · Reply ·
Michael C School I know you only know part of the law like Eddie and i see how you both hide behind each other instead of use Law in your replies. Acing Business Associations (Acing Law School )
Like · Reply ·
Michael C School Thats a good book to get, its on Amazon cheap.
Like · Reply ·
Randy Neroni I agree with Eddie because he knows what he’s talking about. Knowledge is a big deal with me.
Like · Reply · 2 ·
Randy Neroni I used law on you earlier. You put the burden on yourself and couldn’t meet that burden. I didn’t win so much as you ensured you couldn’t win.That’s exactly what would happen with your tactic in a judicial setting.You want to prove that statutes don’t apply to you as an affirmative defense rather than leave the burden of proof on an accuser.
Michael C School You didnt quote any law. You posed a question, i answered. I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People. The State cannot proceed without an injured party and the State cannot be an injured party to an action.
Like · Reply ·
Randy Neroni Injury is not the only way a party can have standing. A legal cause of action can also suffice.
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Michael C School Depends on how much law you know. An entity has inferior standing to One of the People. Was there a Breach of the Peace witnessed by an officer of the Law? Corporations have Charters which can be revoked for breach of Ethics, Breach of Fiduciary obligation, Contract Fraud, etc..
Like · Reply ·
Randy Neroni How many charters have you revoked?
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Randy Neroni How many suits have you defended ? How many prosecuted?
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Michael C School Why didnt you accept the on air debate then? HMM.. Tao is a follower of Jurisdictionary but cant create an enforceable Contract.
Like · Reply ·
Tao Lauw “Follower of JurisDictionary?” You are smoking too many of your own turds there dude. I suggest that you make note of the comments I have posted here that might just be taking the wind out of your sails and your clobberfoot out of your ignorant mouth.
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Randy Neroni He wants to debate what I think, according to the answer he gave.
Is that accurate, Michael?
Unlike · Reply · 2 ·
Tao Lauw Randy Neroni – He lost that debate before he even made the challenge, he’s just too wrapped up in his Patrinut blanket to see a clue.
Like · Reply · 2 ·
Jerry Howe Tao & Randy, thanks for taking the time to set this straight. Michael‘s not the only member of this group who is still clinging to some of the various patrinut myths.But this is not the first time I’ve called him out on it because I’ve caught drift of him attempting to impose or propagate those theories over the use of real remedies such as what this group was founded upon. At least when it comes to some of the other folks who might still be clinging to these false beliefs and false hopes, they tend to remain quiet here in this group. And that’s OK because I figure, in time, if they keep reading and researching their beliefs might evolve past the nonsense. For that reason I really hate the idea of throwing people out of the group. However, in this case, because this has become an obviously ingrained pattern for Michael C School, I’m probably going to have to remove him from the group. I’m going to make a final determination on that later today. Once again, I thank both of you for your time and I certainly appreciate all the invaluable knowledge and skills you bring to this group.
Unlike · Reply · 3 ·
Tao Lauw Jerry Howe – Then might I suggest that you take his more egregious comments here and make a single post out of them, as well as my refutation of those comments. At least then, people won’t be so willing to just jump on the phantom silver bullet bandwagon.
Like · Reply · 2 ·
Michael C School Lame asses is what you are.
Like · Reply ·
Tao Lauw Michael C School – Yeah, excellent point-by-point refutation of the facts provided. Grow the fuck up.
You posted bullshit as truth and then reaped a whirlwind of ass-kicking corrections to your bogus information. You get off on passing off bogus information as if it is irrefutable fact and then you call US lame-asses?
Your ability to insult others is on par with your ability to do legal research and comprehend law, lower than whale shit on the bottom of the Laurentian Abyssal.
Michael C School You two are ridiculous. Good riddance. Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law.
Like · Reply ·
Tao Lauw Michael C School – Your statement “Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law is irrelevant considering that you know even less than nothing about either if your other information is any indication. You are floundering more and more every time you open your mouth.
And now you’ve gone and forced me to make you famous as a perfect example of all that is wrong with the Patrinut theory of law. Way to go jackass.
Like · Reply · 1 ·
Randy Neroni He’s another one that’s going to claim I’m wrong as he goes into the cage.
Like · Reply · 1 ·
So, as you can see, even when given the facts that refute their already shaky lawful and legal foundation, they can’t get over their own cognitive dissonance to see past the fallacy of their understanding of the case opinions, the statutes involved, and piss poor arguments, much less the total fallacy of their now thoroughly discredited legal theory.
It is this very type of legal disinformation and delusional strategy that is costing people their rights and property at an already tremendous and ever escalating rate. NEVER take a case cite or statutory explanation at face value, regardless of how allegedly trustworthy the source, especially if it’s an attorney. Learn to both read and fully understand them for your own sake.
Tao of Law 
Could it be that the Patrinut Community is another branch of government with a duty to keep the sheep in the pen?
LikeLike
It most certainly is a possibility, although it is equally possible, and much more likely, that they are simply mentally lazy and highly gullible individuals that want to seem intelligent or important for having “figured something out” that nobody else appears to know.
LikeLike