restitution and sudep
Posted: August 20th, 2008, 2:08 pm
Internal Discussion on the Issues relating to ‘Proactive Disclosure and Representation’ including Process and Application
as Argument for Restitution
Referring to the Representation of Epileptics in Canada, addressing the issues of Terminology (definition), Technology and Behaviour as discrimination arguments.
One issue in question is the ‘representation of definition’ and the use of terminology to define the Condition referred to as Epilepsy. The argument is the use of terminology that compromises, Citizenship, Health and the right to represent an argument (Representation), including process and application.
The use of definition whether ‘chronic illness’ or otherwise that compromises Citizenship, Health and the right to represent an argument would only represent a discrimination, argument. Representation would not include representing an argument in breech of Citizenship, and/or Health nor the compromise of Disclosure/Discovery, nor the compromise of representing an argument, including policies of non-disclosure. Policies of non-disclosure compromise the representation of argument whether they are arguments of Citizenship or Health.
Policies of non-disclosure imply a Securities, argument and legal organizations such as the Epileptic Society are not legally nor liably involved with organizations that practise policies of non-disclosure.
Legal Organizations cannot represent their Constituency as an argument that compromises Citizenship, Health or the right to represent, Argument, nor any definition which would be interpreted as stigma, as in defamatory, misleading or mis-representative of Citizenship, Health or Representation. ie. The use of ‘chronic illness’ as a description of Epilepsy, implies a discrimination argument and represents a stigmatization and one that compromises Citizenship, Health and Representation and would be interpreted as defamatory and misleading.
Definitions that represent Citizenship, Health and the right to represent do not include the application or process of discrimination nor stigma which is defamatory or misleading.
Definitions such as Syndrome, Condition, Disposition or Predisposition are representatives of Citizenship, Health and Representation and a definition that does not involve the stigmatization of Citizenship, Health nor the right to represent (Representation), Argument.
Issues concerning technology and its uses in Society and how it relates to Epileptics such as Tasar guns and other types of technology disclosed or otherwise are a concern as much by organizational policy as by contraband, including issues such as targeting.
Legal Organizations would have to have access or disclosure on information to prove that Epileptics, Asperger’s Persons and Autistic People are a targeted group of people in society, as much as Citizens who may be victims of targeting or stalking in Society, as potentially a targeted group of people in our Society.
The Tasar gun issue as much as the Sudep issue may represent a statistic that proves that Epileptics are a targeted group of people in our Society even though there may not be any co-relation between Tasar guns and the Sudep issue as the Sudep issue may be related to another type of EMF technology and therefore, may also exist as a targeted group of people argument for Epileptics.
A Securities argument of non-disclosure may also exist as an argument of discrimination as it may also exist as a targeting statistic and a concern for Legal Organizations to address issues of Representation whether it is representation of Citizenship or Health.
The issue concerning targeting of individuals in Society is an interesting legal argument. ie. An individual who is targeted, whereupon they address the issue of targeting (due process) have a concern of being misrepresented as being paranoid, liars or delusional including the issue of mis-repesentation of diagnosis. The concerns of diagnosis arguments only exist to absolve individuals and/or organizations from liability arguments.
As if to say, to be mis-represented by targeting as well as mis-represented as process (due process).
The irony is that definition cannot be used to compromise Citizenship, Health nor Representation!
Society is involved in Proactive Disclosure and Representation and legally these kinds of situations don’t theoretically exist though policies of non-disclosure, contraband issues, internal issues and issues of proactive disclosure would only suggest that persons may and are being targeted.
The Sudep issue is a diagnosis based on inconclusive evidence or disclosure/discovery.
It is impossible to ascertain whether the individuals involved with the S.U.D.E.P. statistic and or diagnosis were not living within the legal application of discrimination (leading to death) concerning ‘proactive disclosure/discovery’ as statistic.
The Sudep issue is a diagnosis based on inconclusive evidence or disclosure/discovery.
as Argument for Restitution
Referring to the Representation of Epileptics in Canada, addressing the issues of Terminology (definition), Technology and Behaviour as discrimination arguments.
One issue in question is the ‘representation of definition’ and the use of terminology to define the Condition referred to as Epilepsy. The argument is the use of terminology that compromises, Citizenship, Health and the right to represent an argument (Representation), including process and application.
The use of definition whether ‘chronic illness’ or otherwise that compromises Citizenship, Health and the right to represent an argument would only represent a discrimination, argument. Representation would not include representing an argument in breech of Citizenship, and/or Health nor the compromise of Disclosure/Discovery, nor the compromise of representing an argument, including policies of non-disclosure. Policies of non-disclosure compromise the representation of argument whether they are arguments of Citizenship or Health.
Policies of non-disclosure imply a Securities, argument and legal organizations such as the Epileptic Society are not legally nor liably involved with organizations that practise policies of non-disclosure.
Legal Organizations cannot represent their Constituency as an argument that compromises Citizenship, Health or the right to represent, Argument, nor any definition which would be interpreted as stigma, as in defamatory, misleading or mis-representative of Citizenship, Health or Representation. ie. The use of ‘chronic illness’ as a description of Epilepsy, implies a discrimination argument and represents a stigmatization and one that compromises Citizenship, Health and Representation and would be interpreted as defamatory and misleading.
Definitions that represent Citizenship, Health and the right to represent do not include the application or process of discrimination nor stigma which is defamatory or misleading.
Definitions such as Syndrome, Condition, Disposition or Predisposition are representatives of Citizenship, Health and Representation and a definition that does not involve the stigmatization of Citizenship, Health nor the right to represent (Representation), Argument.
Issues concerning technology and its uses in Society and how it relates to Epileptics such as Tasar guns and other types of technology disclosed or otherwise are a concern as much by organizational policy as by contraband, including issues such as targeting.
Legal Organizations would have to have access or disclosure on information to prove that Epileptics, Asperger’s Persons and Autistic People are a targeted group of people in society, as much as Citizens who may be victims of targeting or stalking in Society, as potentially a targeted group of people in our Society.
The Tasar gun issue as much as the Sudep issue may represent a statistic that proves that Epileptics are a targeted group of people in our Society even though there may not be any co-relation between Tasar guns and the Sudep issue as the Sudep issue may be related to another type of EMF technology and therefore, may also exist as a targeted group of people argument for Epileptics.
A Securities argument of non-disclosure may also exist as an argument of discrimination as it may also exist as a targeting statistic and a concern for Legal Organizations to address issues of Representation whether it is representation of Citizenship or Health.
The issue concerning targeting of individuals in Society is an interesting legal argument. ie. An individual who is targeted, whereupon they address the issue of targeting (due process) have a concern of being misrepresented as being paranoid, liars or delusional including the issue of mis-repesentation of diagnosis. The concerns of diagnosis arguments only exist to absolve individuals and/or organizations from liability arguments.
As if to say, to be mis-represented by targeting as well as mis-represented as process (due process).
The irony is that definition cannot be used to compromise Citizenship, Health nor Representation!
Society is involved in Proactive Disclosure and Representation and legally these kinds of situations don’t theoretically exist though policies of non-disclosure, contraband issues, internal issues and issues of proactive disclosure would only suggest that persons may and are being targeted.
The Sudep issue is a diagnosis based on inconclusive evidence or disclosure/discovery.
It is impossible to ascertain whether the individuals involved with the S.U.D.E.P. statistic and or diagnosis were not living within the legal application of discrimination (leading to death) concerning ‘proactive disclosure/discovery’ as statistic.
The Sudep issue is a diagnosis based on inconclusive evidence or disclosure/discovery.