You cannot Keep using the Queen as a scapegoat for the way in which you starve your Anglo selves or your Tecumseh selves socio-economically. In fact, a woman in Russia said today that she put her husband's luggage in a new vehicle called a Tecumseh for honoring the name. She was being facetious. There seems to be more racism here than the willingness to change and fix the economy. You see a pot hole but when do you repair the pothole? How long does it take to save your population from a Socio-economic anomaly? We love the Anglo and went to an an Anglican School where our parents paid more than £4000.00 in tuition for our tutelage. We thank the ANGLICAN. We love Tecumseh. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So, we have to work hard in our apologies minute by minute, dedicating every second of our life to a harmony with God and our neighbors; by Warren A. Lyon. This is what I want in my RSGC year book reprint. But, could 1/6 of the transgender collectively starve 5/6 of the population through a Socio-economic benefit anomaly that only pays the transgender an automatic Socio-economic benefit and not the fully male or fully female gender? All three genders have been with us since Genesis in the bible but not so that one gender would kill the other two. It could not be what was intended. It's ultra vires. It is Illegal and contrary to the people"s will and intention. See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification. Legislation Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress. Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two genders. A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits. Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet. But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal when only one gender of the three is provided with the benefit. This is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain on the UK Humanity rights record. Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically. It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law. Certainly, there was a problem with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same with law that enforces and regularised gender equality and that quells disenfranchisement. This Angel Ronan ™ discovery is worth the Doctorate. A new book is coming out entitled "Finding Zacheus, the 10th son of Jesus.". This is alongside the notion that Judas was also a son of Jesus but the unrepentant Prodigal. The problems with Christian ministry or all ministry is that they carry two potential frailties. One is the Aboriginal resentment of ownership. The second is the unusual probability that within a group of 12 people born to one family, one will carry the wound of Jacob and the brothers resenting Joseph's dreams (Who does Joseph think he will be to have any dream in front of me? Does he think he will be me? ) We may raise many mustard seeds but what is the point if as Christian witnesses, we resent the fruit of the tree? This is the nefarious negation of our Ministries and the fruits that they bear in the work, degrees and careers of our children. Anyway, thank you for all your prayers and the 1st in law that I obtained as a member of your ministry. I am a registered Catholic now. Have you been charged with sending emails as to utter false statements and also threaten death? Call Angel Ronan Lex Scripta now. We have a research chapter that will outline the charges, it's history and jurisprudence and also some defences. This is ANGEL Lex Scripta Library Research and not an offer of legal services to the public. When charged, it is a crime against the state. If you kill someone, the initial charges are not going away. The person you threatened directly or indirectly is now dead. Maybe you could have helped them but refused to. The best Defence under the allegations would be evidence of your kindness toward that individual consistently and for sufficient duration to provid evidence to the contrary. Maybe you send them $20.00 per month. Maybe you send them $500.00 once. Call us at Angel Ronan Entwerfen ™ if you nee some one to attend Court. In some jurisdictions, it might be Warren who will be assigned to attend with you. Warren A. Lyon is a 100% Cheddar aboriginal and a Law graduate with a little Egyptian and Montezuma DNA. This makes him every European's cousin. Michael Jackson was a Tecumseh Cheddar Geronimo Sioux. Errol Flynn was also a Tecumseh Cheddar Geronimo. He was raised by part North American Aboriginal people and has seen a dichotomy of cultures and has become a law graduate. The law graduate is not a toy. He cannot work for free in any guise; in or out of the mortal coil. Work is an act of the will and you cannot make him do law work for free. The Aboriginal law graduate is, First of all, a product of Aboriginal angst and anxiety about law. They want more understanding, access and representative redress. Then, he is a target of their resentment about law and laws that affect their hunter gatherer freedoms. But, after graduation isn't he still a Navajo or a Taino, a Tecumseh or a Geronimo or a Cheddar? So, Essentially it is a culture of negating the Aboriginal self and when the old, old man refuses to respect property ownership, the balance sheet for the Aboriginal is ZERO. He tolerated and participated in ownership for a time but then he drugged himself back to more self- defined natural inclinations. He now says, as he sits in your school teacher's or local bus driver's old house after they passed away, "...This is where I live. I don't know how I own it, I do not own it but this is where I am, where I live." He thinks we should respect and tolerate this challenge and resistance of ownership while he holds and Apple phone in his hand as his moniker of war and tribulation against law. The truth is there is more aboriginal, Tecumseh resistance than there were Tecumseh people. There could not have been many Tecumseh people in that ancient cold before the Revenant came. Bur, the resistance continues as they must have generated hundreds and thousands of Tecumseh; more than the numbers of Tecumseh that existed when Cabot arrived on that day one interdiction of the Aboriginal world. This is what one drop of Tecumseh seed can do. But, in the dichotomy of cultures he has seen that the Aboriginal war has continued and is on going as raised by an aboriginal family in time for a white Aboriginal government. The depth of the problem is that there is still resentment for law by the aboriginal and this is the dichotomy when law is government and government is law; not just position and power. The aboriginal is helped by law when the some can account of horses thieves apparently from neighbouring Tribes. See the Revenant (movie) where the power of one man or one tribe resisteth another, where life outside of the world of regularised law enforcement in the home and in society is nasty, brutish and short. See Thomas Hobbes. Law is about peace, order and good government. Aboriginal Government cannot be about resisting and resentment everything that comes from Europe and then also Egypt before that. We accept clothing, water, food and shelter for their modern usefulness. We accept the money as the means by which we acquire the modern and useful necessities of life. The white Aboriginal government may have no other policy except money and lots of it for the people in addition to appropriate treatment of the people and population by state authorities, thereby negativing any abuse of power and we should be sure that we do not use government for the re enactment of our negative experience as Aboriginals when we may have sojourned in darker and other hues, giving expression to communal pains when maybe movies are the best way to communicate experiences instead of through awkward abnormal policies such as legal nakedness or transgender income benefit superiority causing genocide via a gender inequality. Even if nakedness was legal, we would not forestall the income support that would enable them to buy clothing. It is normal in our day and age for every citizen to have an income support provided by the government automatically. There is no debate on this except in English countries that have high rates of surrogate populations from Asia where such income support is provided. You may feel the need to resist Europe and its demand that you input an income support. You may want use the transgender only Automatic income support policy to broadcast a discussion and ask a question like what man (Rameses): or What God would create a feminine creature that cannot have a baby? Ask Hannah or Sarai in the bible but they did have the baby like the bible says. In any event, You are only killing yourself and your own people in the resistance; hence the surrogate population but you must understand that the question about the barren feminine creature is as old as the bible. We cannot broadcast our ignorance on these issues but we will have a discussion that is not hurtful as family and community continues where now every Citizen has the income support and not just the transgender 1/6 of the population. Anything else risks shame when there should he honor. We can write a movie to express our hurts, express how we feel when mistreated at the bank. We do not need a politician to "will" weak minded people to commit criminal offences against bank customers so that the brown politician believes we will now know and understand what the brown aboriginal politician suffered as a regular citizen. She should just find these people who might have fallen for the this suggestion in the current regime and execute with clean cut prosecution. ----- See Hanse Dente in Fargo or the movie Hostile with the Batman actor. Clearly piracy is what we get when law is challenged and the acquisition of necessities of life. Dumping money on the alibi of need and desperation is the best way to fight piracy. Even if the benefit between transgender and non transgender is not precisely equal but nearly equal, then it is good logically for the economy as no one is dying in a retrograde, economically retarded Socio-economic benefit regime as benefit policy cannon fodder. We will treat the population as we wish to be treated. There are laws to monitor when officers can approach you in public. There are no reasonable and probable grounds to approach you. Did you call the police at a hostel on an old lady, knitting? You accused her of noise offences , drinking and eating In her bed. Drinking and eating is normal. There is no evidence to corroborate your allegations. You said it happened at 3 am but you did not call the police until 8 am and then you offered sex to the police and the hotel staff, just to see your authority and get attention. This is criminal MISCHIEF. It could be MISCHIEF for the hotel staff also (what is "You and I"?). You were asked to come to the station and make a statement because if it's a trial you want, where is the evidence? Your statement alone is not enough to convict or arrest. It's the accused and his word against yours. It's nothing more than a competition of statements. Did you record the woman shouting and take photos of her throwing food? The staff are not witnesses. See Sklar v Borys. This requires officer training and professionalism. The uniform is not an opportunity to abuse power or the public. Even President Joe Bindem was fired from a police job once for this; fired apparently. Bindem is asking the entirety of the world to understand how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Maybe a movie is the best way to achieve this. It is amazing how the government has sacked it self during the COVID in breach of court rulings such as Re(B) to the tune of billions in potential judgements under Re(B) and Dorset Yacht vs. Home Secretary. If you say millions have died on the news and this is official government news, then you are responsible for any shock or alarm that has transpired that is also litigious in nature. To provoke law suits while involved the administration of the system is criminal mischief. There is no doubt you have all the power to do this. As such, the law should not be used as a target but as a tool to achieve Aboriginal solutions and answer Aboriginal needs. Money is what the Aboriginal needs although hunting and gathering might be fun. The law graduate, Aboriginal or not, also shouldn't be a target. They help people. You can still hunt and fish even though you have the income support provided automatically to all citizens. At the moment, it is not provided to all citizens since 1951 and this fact is the great stain on the UK Humanity Rights record, It is an Economic ground zero first and foremost that is, in corollary, a human rights issues rather evidently. See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification. Legislation Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress. Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two genders. A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits. Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet. There is always disparity in the three gender reality, physically speaking. All can speak in tongues or become reprobate, watching sex movies. All can repent according to 1st John 1:9. All can receive salvation under Romans 7 and Romans 8. We can all eat McDonald's. 😁 We cannot hide from this. There are three genders. Two genders rely on the gender with the womb to procreate. There is disparity in education also sometimes but that is by personal choice usually. But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal and is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain on the UK Humanity rights record. Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically. It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law. Certainly, there was a problem with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same. This Angel Ronan ™ discovery is worth the Doctorate. When people use their benefits to Finance the obstruction of justice or to pervert the course of justice, then we have contempt of court when they pay court clerks or officers to change the court records or the court information. The Court clerk has the money or that officer who is charged with Obstruct Justice and for taking bribes.😃 When people have the money to go to school and choose not to, then maybe they have money but they have also chosen to fund their own emotional poverty and it's all my fault when they live for nothing but their ego but their ego should be content as they have gotten all they have bargained for wit their Antoinette Arthers Republican Army. She has asked for the death of tube employees who caution her and they are dead. There is something wrong.😄