Post by Administrator on Nov 26, 2020 16:09:56 GMT
Ok.. Serious Issues with Facebook, Youtube & Messenger.
They have all become literally "Their Own Governments"
They are applying Policy and FORCE mainly in pursuit of proffit for their other "friends" and Corporate buddies in Warner Brothers and other big organizations... To try to prohibit and control us & make money...
But mainly now, its clear that YouTube has a POLITICAL OPINION and POSITION.
In fact it is now trying to CONTROL out political Views And Opinion.
Messenger abridges our right to talk to & petition many many pricate people (which is illegal for facebook & messenger to do to us)
By restricting our accounts (punishing us)
And YouTube is is absolute criminal breach of the Human Rights act & Democracy..
By acting as if it is its own government & not enforcing our RIGHTS (political rights) fairly when 3rd parties make claims against us using Law that s in fact Not Allowed to be used against us.
Actually I have had YouTube Agree with me, I am correct in the past... But they are now even in contradition of their own actions
Because they have said the law IS valid & then said it is NOT...
Which is impossible. The Right is not Case specific.
Its applicable to LEGISLATION itself.. Not "individual suits"
They have all become literally "Their Own Governments"
They are applying Policy and FORCE mainly in pursuit of proffit for their other "friends" and Corporate buddies in Warner Brothers and other big organizations... To try to prohibit and control us & make money...
But mainly now, its clear that YouTube has a POLITICAL OPINION and POSITION.
In fact it is now trying to CONTROL out political Views And Opinion.
Messenger abridges our right to talk to & petition many many pricate people (which is illegal for facebook & messenger to do to us)
By restricting our accounts (punishing us)
And YouTube is is absolute criminal breach of the Human Rights act & Democracy..
By acting as if it is its own government & not enforcing our RIGHTS (political rights) fairly when 3rd parties make claims against us using Law that s in fact Not Allowed to be used against us.
Actually I have had YouTube Agree with me, I am correct in the past... But they are now even in contradition of their own actions
Because they have said the law IS valid & then said it is NOT...
Which is impossible. The Right is not Case specific.
Its applicable to LEGISLATION itself.. Not "individual suits"
Legal actions and threats against my protected petitioning channel.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNNtaH0ClfI
Dear YouTube. And Warner Brothers
In regards to the claim against me by Warner Brothers (who have not yet responded) themselves
YouTube
You are clearly wrong and in fallacy concerning this matter.
The hard evidence of my claim BEING VALID (same claim for previous videos) applied to all my videos..
You have already admitted the legal claim is valid.
On previous claims.
Therefore you are not in a position to disregard the claim.
All you are doing is being very awkward and obstructive.
The legal basis IS ADMITTED already.
Therefore as we have already agreed in the past... is applicable duplicate legal basis.
And I DO have the right.
Which is why I am now doing street art again without legal challenges..
The situation is that you are limiting my powers by just sending an email "saying" I don't have the right.
When I do.. because you know its unlikely I will be able to do anything further and give up, because you believe I don't have the capacity to do anything else..
The fact is you have admitted the exact same claim on the BBC video and other videos of mine.
Don't pretend this is not MASSIVE
YouTube, you are a multi billion dollar organisation.
You have channels that make millions and you enjoy the power to treat them the same as you are treating me now..
Because you enjoy the financial capacity to play games with lawyers and they take further money from other YouTube users.
Now you profess that you are only mediating on behalf of Warner Brothers.
Who have not responded to me directly.
As far as you are concerned I have not only had this claim approved on other videos but I have also deeply furthered the material and information as well.
And there is no way your legal team have read and studied what I have submitted, in this time since my last email its impossible.
Therefore you are providing an absolutely defective and critically failed service.
The claim IS valid and the fact that this is likely the biggest thing that your legal department will ever deal with and the most serious and important right in the history of the entire world..
Do not pretend this is not a serious matter and try to play it down as a needle in a haystack of insignificant complaints in your millions of other users workload..
As this is TOP of the pile. Top of the list.
The fact is you don't want to have to update your policy and framework for it.
You are in fact supposed to be independent from Warner Brothers.
You are supposed to be an independent mediator on behalf of application of law, without an opinion..
But it seems you are in fact politically employed by Warner Brothers to do as they will...
Are you receiving money from Warner Brothers or helping them to amass proffit from YouTube??
The fact is...
This law and right removes power from YOUTUBE.
Forget Warner Brothers or any other claimant.
The LAW ITSELF restricts YOU TUBE powers.
And you not only resent that..
You do not like it at all.
Literally cringe at the prospect.
Tough.
The fact of law is that COURTS cannot be used, to prevent evidence and information being brought by petitioning..
And any information or presentation content can be used.
Now you are going to have to do a lot more than your supposed research and study because there is no way you have looked into this in 48 hours..
For a matter that is HUGE.
In fact, you likely have intense political interests of your own, to keep hold of power and influence over your YouTube videos and accounts.
Therefore we have an immediate issue.
YouTube... you have your own political agenda and desire to hold control and power over us.
You do NOT wish to have to admit that there are limitations to that power.
Now, I am raining this complaint, escalating it to the Chief Executive of YouTube.
Because you do NOT have the legal powers to remove my videos and your POLICY is NOT valid against a channel being used for political purposes to hold evidence in International and National affairs of Greivences and investigation to Governments.
You do NOT have powers to ABRIDGE the RIGHT to hold and host that evidence.
The only legal clause you are using (a very petty one) is copywrite laws.
Which frankly are not even that serious in light of exemptions from acts like criminal damages act 1971, section 5.
The channel I am using is not even activated for monetization so I am not here for proffit reasons. You deactivated my monetization and that is a further argument
Now... the money is not an issue because a political campaign is not there to make money.
It's there for information and evidence and demonstration.
Therefore no copywrite agent or holder has anything to be concerned about another party making money from their material.
Warner Brothers main concern is to prevent others making proffit.
Now, the only other use of material than proffit, is meaning, demonstration, information.
And that is what political purposes are for.
Also.. you have not provided any legal details about your rejection of my claim.
You are trying to make it appear its something and nothing..
You can't deny a serious legal claim by sending a very poor response with absolutely no details, no points and no details concerning exactly what clauses you believe are invalid and why.
And that I believe is because you haven't even read, studied or learned the legal submission I have made.
Now I am escalating this to Directors and Chief Executives.
Its NOT an insignificant claim.
It's the biggest and most important claim ever possible and it's not even a claim.
There IS NOT counter Claim..
Because I am not making a counter claim.
I am stating LEGAL FACT and LAW.
That doesn't require any court or Judgement..
It is only by LAW that YouTube can even issue copyright warnings.
Without LAW there is nothing to claim, nothing to issue..... there is no basis for strikes or 3rd parties to DO anything at all.
Now..
There IS a LAW that clearly states..
YOU CAN NOT RAISE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST A PETITIONING ENTITY.
You can't do it.
Its illegal.
Prosections and court commitments.
(ALL) all of them.
Which includes all copywrite legislation and law. Every law. Every act.
There is NO ACT OF LAW TO WHICH THIS DOES NOT APPLY.
And as it clearly now is applied to the Criminal Damage ACT 1971. With NATIONAL recognition and acknowledgement...
It clearly therefore applies to EVERY OTHER ACT.
ALL PROSECUTIONS ARE ILLEGAL.
what does it say??
1688 Bill of rights..
It is the right of the subjects to petition the king and *ALL* prosecutions and commitments are illegal
ALL.
Therefore now that the street art and painting is being done freely all around the UK... its clearly already known and official.
As I have demonstrated and Extinction Rebellion.
Now...
Can you show me....
Where in that one act that IS THE SOLE LAW..
*all prosecutions and commitments are illegal *
Can you and Warner Brothers please point out in that line of legislation.... where it says......
ALL commitments and prosecutions are illegal (except for copywrite legislation)
Because... it does NOT.
I DOES DAM WELL NOT NOT NOT NOT
Say.. all commitments and prosecutions are illegal *except for copyright law*
Does it??
No.
Therefore I can assure you with no doubt what so ever.
That..... WARNER BROTHERS claim IS ILLEGAL against my channel and all and any video I have the right to entertain that right under.
This is NOT A COUNTER CLAIM THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE
You will re instated the video and all of the other videos also.
As exactly has been admitted and agreed by the BBC and other parties on the claims already admitted because it is the same.
As I have previously stated in past claims.
It has already been admitted.
Its impossible for it to apply and not apply at the same time across my channel.
Because then you are in contradiction of law. And being in contradiction of yourself is in fact fraud because you are agreeing with a law in one video and then disagreeing with it in another.. when its the same right and law of the same effect.
This is NOT a standard claim where I person simply uses evidence of permission, Authorization or ownership.
Those are not the basis of standard claims that are case specific to individual videos owned by different copyright holders.
This is RIGHTS LAW.
Not specifically to any particular copyright holder or 3rd party. The 3rd party is NOT RELEVANT
The copyright holder is not relevant, permission is not relevant, licence is not relevant and contract or any other case specific material is NOT Relevant.
It's an overriding objective of LAW.
It is LAW that renders the copywrite acts themselves NOT APPLICABLE.
We are talking about LAW.
It is my RIGHT that overrides the COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION ITSELF.
Therefore there is no law in effect that you can use to bring legal action or threat worth against me.
So there is no counter claim to submit to, under the legislation of those acts and no need for me to even have to use the YouTube policy over copyright because it can not be applied it is of no effect.
It is ILLEGAL to use the copyright acts against my channel.
Now unless you come up with some more specific details and clauses... direct from legislation... then you have no grounds for any further denial of the facts.
If you can not give an explanation of where in the law you believe that I don't have the right I am using.. then it will be considered that I DO have the right.
Your main fallacy is that... you are going to have to demonstrate that in the 1st Amendment and 1688 Bill of Rights...
Right to petition...
"All prosecutions and commitments are illegal "
And Congress shall make "NO LAW" that will abridge the right of the Citizens to petition the Government for redress of grievances..
You are going to have to show that... in those statute and overriding rights...
It makes a distinction between the criminal damage act 1971, and the copyright laws you operate YouTube under.
And as the Right to petition clearly makes no distinction between any act being not included...
Then ALL acts ARE included. All of them.
ALL PROSECUTIONS ARE ILLEGAL. AND ALL COMMITMENTS, ORDERS BY COURTS.
charges cannot be brought by any act of law. You can only bring a legal action by prosecution, law suit, leading to a court making a commitment order.
You can't do it. Its illegal.
You are abridging the right of a Citizen to publish, host, store, produce and delivery their evidence, demonstrations and promotion of the cause.
If you remove videos or their channels.
You can't do it. YouTube cannot and does not have legal authority to.
And you don't like it. In fact I believe your objections are nothing more than political.
Therefore YouTube has a political alignment for itself and its 3rd parties.
And even its directors political allegiances.
YouTube has an interest in attempting to control political material for it's own gain, reasons, purposes and opinions.
Which.. you cannot use ANY ACT OF LAW TO DO SO.
The only laws currently legislated on that have reduced political capacity are the pandemic laws to stop people gathering in large groups.. which I believe are unfounded anyway..
But certainly over media and socially distanced computer and internet there are no such restrictions.
Also, people have the right to sign, comment and support a petition and cause.
So they have right to comment..
Which is why Facebook messenger is currently in breach of the right to petition.
Because when a person sends a great number of private messenger messages asking for petitioning signatures..
Facebook and messenger have no legal right to restrict the account and flag as spam and restrict the account temporarily..
Because messages that are request for signatures on a petition are not spam and have a right..
Not to be abridged.
Its is international offence and crime in America to Abridge the right to petition the Government and a certain number of signatures are required and free promotion and hosting of the evidence for the cause.
Facebook messenger abridged that right to petition for signatures when it restricts a messenger account for 24 hours or 48 hours.. if a person sends too many messages in 1 day.
Therefore messenger and Facebook are operating an illegal function..
Which needs to identify "petition" from others normal message requests.
I can absolutely guarantee this is the case.
And if you attempt to put a clause in your policies that would relinquish the individuals right to petition.. rights to democratic rights.. also against the Human rights act..
There is something very very very sinister and wrong with YouTube and Facebook
Seriously. Literally you believe you are more powerful than Democracy itself and you are attempting to make a new world and law to your own that is somehow above and beyond the laws and rights of countries.. you are attempting to have a corporate buisness law where you believe you are not a company you are a Government yourself
YouTube YOU ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT.
You do not MAKE LAW.
Your policy can only exist under the democratic rights, and you can never ever attempt to take away rights in order to apply effect to actually what is nothing other than your own political wishes and wills and motives.
Now I want this raised to Directors board and Executives immediately.
Regards
ESCALATING COMPLAINT TO DIECTORS BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE Re: [QOSG5ELFIHQF2NTIMBMMHHVW34] New Copyright Counter-Notification
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNNtaH0ClfI
Dear YouTube. And Warner Brothers
In regards to the claim against me by Warner Brothers (who have not yet responded) themselves
YouTube
You are clearly wrong and in fallacy concerning this matter.
The hard evidence of my claim BEING VALID (same claim for previous videos) applied to all my videos..
You have already admitted the legal claim is valid.
On previous claims.
Therefore you are not in a position to disregard the claim.
All you are doing is being very awkward and obstructive.
The legal basis IS ADMITTED already.
Therefore as we have already agreed in the past... is applicable duplicate legal basis.
And I DO have the right.
Which is why I am now doing street art again without legal challenges..
The situation is that you are limiting my powers by just sending an email "saying" I don't have the right.
When I do.. because you know its unlikely I will be able to do anything further and give up, because you believe I don't have the capacity to do anything else..
The fact is you have admitted the exact same claim on the BBC video and other videos of mine.
Don't pretend this is not MASSIVE
YouTube, you are a multi billion dollar organisation.
You have channels that make millions and you enjoy the power to treat them the same as you are treating me now..
Because you enjoy the financial capacity to play games with lawyers and they take further money from other YouTube users.
Now you profess that you are only mediating on behalf of Warner Brothers.
Who have not responded to me directly.
As far as you are concerned I have not only had this claim approved on other videos but I have also deeply furthered the material and information as well.
And there is no way your legal team have read and studied what I have submitted, in this time since my last email its impossible.
Therefore you are providing an absolutely defective and critically failed service.
The claim IS valid and the fact that this is likely the biggest thing that your legal department will ever deal with and the most serious and important right in the history of the entire world..
Do not pretend this is not a serious matter and try to play it down as a needle in a haystack of insignificant complaints in your millions of other users workload..
As this is TOP of the pile. Top of the list.
The fact is you don't want to have to update your policy and framework for it.
You are in fact supposed to be independent from Warner Brothers.
You are supposed to be an independent mediator on behalf of application of law, without an opinion..
But it seems you are in fact politically employed by Warner Brothers to do as they will...
Are you receiving money from Warner Brothers or helping them to amass proffit from YouTube??
The fact is...
This law and right removes power from YOUTUBE.
Forget Warner Brothers or any other claimant.
The LAW ITSELF restricts YOU TUBE powers.
And you not only resent that..
You do not like it at all.
Literally cringe at the prospect.
Tough.
The fact of law is that COURTS cannot be used, to prevent evidence and information being brought by petitioning..
And any information or presentation content can be used.
Now you are going to have to do a lot more than your supposed research and study because there is no way you have looked into this in 48 hours..
For a matter that is HUGE.
In fact, you likely have intense political interests of your own, to keep hold of power and influence over your YouTube videos and accounts.
Therefore we have an immediate issue.
YouTube... you have your own political agenda and desire to hold control and power over us.
You do NOT wish to have to admit that there are limitations to that power.
Now, I am raining this complaint, escalating it to the Chief Executive of YouTube.
Because you do NOT have the legal powers to remove my videos and your POLICY is NOT valid against a channel being used for political purposes to hold evidence in International and National affairs of Greivences and investigation to Governments.
You do NOT have powers to ABRIDGE the RIGHT to hold and host that evidence.
The only legal clause you are using (a very petty one) is copywrite laws.
Which frankly are not even that serious in light of exemptions from acts like criminal damages act 1971, section 5.
The channel I am using is not even activated for monetization so I am not here for proffit reasons. You deactivated my monetization and that is a further argument
Now... the money is not an issue because a political campaign is not there to make money.
It's there for information and evidence and demonstration.
Therefore no copywrite agent or holder has anything to be concerned about another party making money from their material.
Warner Brothers main concern is to prevent others making proffit.
Now, the only other use of material than proffit, is meaning, demonstration, information.
And that is what political purposes are for.
Also.. you have not provided any legal details about your rejection of my claim.
You are trying to make it appear its something and nothing..
You can't deny a serious legal claim by sending a very poor response with absolutely no details, no points and no details concerning exactly what clauses you believe are invalid and why.
And that I believe is because you haven't even read, studied or learned the legal submission I have made.
Now I am escalating this to Directors and Chief Executives.
Its NOT an insignificant claim.
It's the biggest and most important claim ever possible and it's not even a claim.
There IS NOT counter Claim..
Because I am not making a counter claim.
I am stating LEGAL FACT and LAW.
That doesn't require any court or Judgement..
It is only by LAW that YouTube can even issue copyright warnings.
Without LAW there is nothing to claim, nothing to issue..... there is no basis for strikes or 3rd parties to DO anything at all.
Now..
There IS a LAW that clearly states..
YOU CAN NOT RAISE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST A PETITIONING ENTITY.
You can't do it.
Its illegal.
Prosections and court commitments.
(ALL) all of them.
Which includes all copywrite legislation and law. Every law. Every act.
There is NO ACT OF LAW TO WHICH THIS DOES NOT APPLY.
And as it clearly now is applied to the Criminal Damage ACT 1971. With NATIONAL recognition and acknowledgement...
It clearly therefore applies to EVERY OTHER ACT.
ALL PROSECUTIONS ARE ILLEGAL.
what does it say??
1688 Bill of rights..
It is the right of the subjects to petition the king and *ALL* prosecutions and commitments are illegal
ALL.
Therefore now that the street art and painting is being done freely all around the UK... its clearly already known and official.
As I have demonstrated and Extinction Rebellion.
Now...
Can you show me....
Where in that one act that IS THE SOLE LAW..
*all prosecutions and commitments are illegal *
Can you and Warner Brothers please point out in that line of legislation.... where it says......
ALL commitments and prosecutions are illegal (except for copywrite legislation)
Because... it does NOT.
I DOES DAM WELL NOT NOT NOT NOT
Say.. all commitments and prosecutions are illegal *except for copyright law*
Does it??
No.
Therefore I can assure you with no doubt what so ever.
That..... WARNER BROTHERS claim IS ILLEGAL against my channel and all and any video I have the right to entertain that right under.
This is NOT A COUNTER CLAIM THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE
You will re instated the video and all of the other videos also.
As exactly has been admitted and agreed by the BBC and other parties on the claims already admitted because it is the same.
As I have previously stated in past claims.
It has already been admitted.
Its impossible for it to apply and not apply at the same time across my channel.
Because then you are in contradiction of law. And being in contradiction of yourself is in fact fraud because you are agreeing with a law in one video and then disagreeing with it in another.. when its the same right and law of the same effect.
This is NOT a standard claim where I person simply uses evidence of permission, Authorization or ownership.
Those are not the basis of standard claims that are case specific to individual videos owned by different copyright holders.
This is RIGHTS LAW.
Not specifically to any particular copyright holder or 3rd party. The 3rd party is NOT RELEVANT
The copyright holder is not relevant, permission is not relevant, licence is not relevant and contract or any other case specific material is NOT Relevant.
It's an overriding objective of LAW.
It is LAW that renders the copywrite acts themselves NOT APPLICABLE.
We are talking about LAW.
It is my RIGHT that overrides the COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION ITSELF.
Therefore there is no law in effect that you can use to bring legal action or threat worth against me.
So there is no counter claim to submit to, under the legislation of those acts and no need for me to even have to use the YouTube policy over copyright because it can not be applied it is of no effect.
It is ILLEGAL to use the copyright acts against my channel.
Now unless you come up with some more specific details and clauses... direct from legislation... then you have no grounds for any further denial of the facts.
If you can not give an explanation of where in the law you believe that I don't have the right I am using.. then it will be considered that I DO have the right.
Your main fallacy is that... you are going to have to demonstrate that in the 1st Amendment and 1688 Bill of Rights...
Right to petition...
"All prosecutions and commitments are illegal "
And Congress shall make "NO LAW" that will abridge the right of the Citizens to petition the Government for redress of grievances..
You are going to have to show that... in those statute and overriding rights...
It makes a distinction between the criminal damage act 1971, and the copyright laws you operate YouTube under.
And as the Right to petition clearly makes no distinction between any act being not included...
Then ALL acts ARE included. All of them.
ALL PROSECUTIONS ARE ILLEGAL. AND ALL COMMITMENTS, ORDERS BY COURTS.
charges cannot be brought by any act of law. You can only bring a legal action by prosecution, law suit, leading to a court making a commitment order.
You can't do it. Its illegal.
You are abridging the right of a Citizen to publish, host, store, produce and delivery their evidence, demonstrations and promotion of the cause.
If you remove videos or their channels.
You can't do it. YouTube cannot and does not have legal authority to.
And you don't like it. In fact I believe your objections are nothing more than political.
Therefore YouTube has a political alignment for itself and its 3rd parties.
And even its directors political allegiances.
YouTube has an interest in attempting to control political material for it's own gain, reasons, purposes and opinions.
Which.. you cannot use ANY ACT OF LAW TO DO SO.
The only laws currently legislated on that have reduced political capacity are the pandemic laws to stop people gathering in large groups.. which I believe are unfounded anyway..
But certainly over media and socially distanced computer and internet there are no such restrictions.
Also, people have the right to sign, comment and support a petition and cause.
So they have right to comment..
Which is why Facebook messenger is currently in breach of the right to petition.
Because when a person sends a great number of private messenger messages asking for petitioning signatures..
Facebook and messenger have no legal right to restrict the account and flag as spam and restrict the account temporarily..
Because messages that are request for signatures on a petition are not spam and have a right..
Not to be abridged.
Its is international offence and crime in America to Abridge the right to petition the Government and a certain number of signatures are required and free promotion and hosting of the evidence for the cause.
Facebook messenger abridged that right to petition for signatures when it restricts a messenger account for 24 hours or 48 hours.. if a person sends too many messages in 1 day.
Therefore messenger and Facebook are operating an illegal function..
Which needs to identify "petition" from others normal message requests.
I can absolutely guarantee this is the case.
And if you attempt to put a clause in your policies that would relinquish the individuals right to petition.. rights to democratic rights.. also against the Human rights act..
There is something very very very sinister and wrong with YouTube and Facebook
Seriously. Literally you believe you are more powerful than Democracy itself and you are attempting to make a new world and law to your own that is somehow above and beyond the laws and rights of countries.. you are attempting to have a corporate buisness law where you believe you are not a company you are a Government yourself
YouTube YOU ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT.
You do not MAKE LAW.
Your policy can only exist under the democratic rights, and you can never ever attempt to take away rights in order to apply effect to actually what is nothing other than your own political wishes and wills and motives.
Now I want this raised to Directors board and Executives immediately.
Regards
ESCALATING COMPLAINT TO DIECTORS BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE Re: [QOSG5ELFIHQF2NTIMBMMHHVW34] New Copyright Counter-Notification