Recession's Clause = Secession's Claws: Evolve Into a Pro Se Predator...Beast Mode!!

Here's all you need to know: malfeasance and FRE Rule 301, metaphors and check-valves. Recession's clause allows for civil cases to be filed against parties when normally such could not be heard by a court, though only for those within sovereign caveat.

Below is the text from our donations' page for more clarification if need be:

====================

1. Statement for Recession's Clause

1.1. The internet is ablaze with a litany of information and opinions on government immunity although there is perhaps more debate on its actual nature, and in fact this area may be considered the most heavily debated area of law and for good reason, notwithstanding appeal. Simple logic would show us that in cases cited by the courts wherein sovereign immunity had not been proven by citizen parties without caveat for proper progress under the extenuation against citizen parties within caveat, such caselaw being used would inherently be able to be thrown out due to the fact that sovereign immunity should be respected predominately, with such simply defaulting towards sovereign government immunity when civilian parties fail to show, and so in those cases under the extenuation (which has existed since the ratification of our constitution in order to bring about secession against the evils which evolved it for demonstration's purpose alone) wherein there was no assertion of sovereignty whatsoever, it would be more obvious that the litigation were simply confused by the matters' potential lending against "normal" logic which they of course would've had to justify by using poor interpretations of the law and odd judgment, all of which's root is well-explained by the Max-Well {Quantum Governance} proof of caveat exhibit. And such would not just be inexorably upheld by recession's clause per rules of evidence in favor of sovereignty versus recession e.g. that of government in recession, though would also be derived from it--being as much support as one could possibly find, by being progress also in recession: federal...allowing a court to proceed naturally in time's just form as such.

1.2. Sovereign immunity would make absolutely no modern sense without the evolved mechanism of secession, and so the idea of sovereign immunity as a purely logistical integral of the english common law term would be terribly incorrect, in the same manner that computer code is an inherently different concept from the early meanings of code, being more of a type of language rather than code, just like the modern term for missile is much different than its original...or the term drive. In fact, one could argue that as warfare progresses into the future wherein quantum tech should be able to recreate positions of individual atoms leading towards our own resurrection/respawn devices that weapons of war such as missiles should evolve to a civilized level able to be used in court, officially...and so the concept of what a missile once was compared to what it should perhaps become may be considered as differing in a manner more critical with respect to its legal use versus its root use. And in fact one would be able to argue that such final, evolved uses would have been the originally intended most actual state--implying that sovereign uses of normally unlawful measures may be seen as lawful under extenuation, setting those functions equal to (implying that in the past certain cases could have fallen within the scope, and perhaps many that did not for one reason or another via federal capability to incorporate).

1.3. Any mistaken employment of sovereign immunity would be unacceptable in a modern courtroom, as if one were attempting to argue to a traffic cop that driving a team of horses on a stagecoach down a highway were lawful due to medical literature referring to muscular bodily functions of animals as motor functions, and with code of law stating that only motor vehicles may be operated on the roadway, implying that a team of horses would be legal to drive due to their motor functions being able to be interpreted as motors for a stagecoach vehicle.

1.4. Just because a law may be interpreted one way or another in a manner satisfying logic on either side does not necessarily imply that whichever side a judge chooses to uphold ultimately becomes the law by precedent alone, for secession's mechanism would show us that recession should be able to be used as a type of exotic, superluminal tact for most ultimate progress eventually in light, which would tend to confuse anyone less than inclined all the more...simply coming down to which argument nets more effectively.

1.5. A court may see from the graphs and excerpts adapted below that the current state of the union has been in retrograde, with debt being moreso federal now at over 50% of total assets. Any entity owing more than half of what it is worth veritably does not own itself, indicating that the people would not be free from themselves against amendment right, if not sanity (also exempting anyone for progress understanding secession's sovereign necessitation for said from being declared mentally incompetent, and indicating that those who would attempt to declare anyone as such should themselves be considered as so due to such legitimacy of minority rule and also illegtimacy of majority rule and vice versa under superluminal extenuation for secession's refederation higher).

1.6. Recession in our own Nation presents us with the inavoidable conclusion that the citizens of the United States under such condition must be seen as moreso unconstitutional in their own right than not under state in federal rules of evidence, with the dollar standing for a unit of work and with work being measured in Newton-Meters and then with energy in E=mc^2 being measured in Newtons, which would support the claim that an energetic confluence or deficit in our financial energies would so equate unitarily to measures of our matters in lawful jurisdiction. Such assertion would be underpinned and undeniable considering quantum entanglement's warp speed withunder inthrough our minds by self-governance, with time’s parent dimension biding all via the 5th/14th Amendments’ rights against deprivation, constitutionally speaking, upheld by the 9th/10th fastly albeit superluminally at least moreso, the shortest action (see: quantum teleportation).

1.7. One may see by the graphs and the excerpt from Wikipedia further below that the national debt is currently at about 55% of total assets, placing any and all aspects of The United States by any measure as about 5% moreso recessive on the whole through preponderance under civil rule. Those figures are more explicit than the simple per-year GDP figures as well; which should stand as irrefutable, direct evidence of tort in a court, in as being from such clause of recession for secession with respect to citizen parties or their government ceteris paribus with regard to the sovereign caveat requiting refederation in order to exploit exotic property of matter, with the following logic extenuating.

2. The Extenuation of Sovereign Immunity for Recession

2.1. Recession's clause should indicate receding guilt on the more economically responsible party, all things being equal with regard to legal tender...as such, economically sovereign caveat with respect to secession's superluminal gains therefrom the extenuation for recession may occur receding guilt in a positively negative fashion under recession's clause, or rather in an exotic post-positive superluminal federal capacity by the same token depending on sovereignty's angle (of being without or within caveat), with the latter being both most lawful and only so by being within caveat for secession against recession in progress (from the former's lack which had lawfully aligned the latter)...of which places progress not in caveat as evermore recessive, creating extenuation for anti-progressive recession versus to be moreso lawful in/of refederation's potential from secession moreso cause duly via QE.

2.2. Such caveat of secession's reunion from recession's extenuation would be well-known from sovereign immunity under the Article III precedent law having two halves: sovereign civilian immunity and sovereign government immunity, with the latter being a derivation of the former when citizen parties are not in caveat and recession versus progress not in caveat must be upheld otherwise moreso in favor of secession by a freer government of the people. Implicit constitutional law's ability to modulate differently for identical causes based upon the sovereignty of parties is able to program the public's economy towards such preferential evolutioning through recession's sovereign superluminal logic, eventually triggering secession's progressive refederation from the entanglement. One must bear in mind that anything other than the speed of the universal constant of light must be interpreted by civil policy as being at least faster than it.

2.3. Duly, the burden of proof would rest away from sovereignty, with recession's clause serving as a most direct circumstance of evidence untowards the insovereign, affirming any further claims against them due to recession able to include any tort, with civil policy assuming guilt until innocence is proven (opposite of criminal policy). A court may feel more compelled to act differently under recession to some altered degree commensurately considering the shift in the burden of proof in-as-much, and so may rule in favor of the caveat ever moreso than normal with regard. It should be obvious that any citizen in recession who had allowed such not seeking remedy should be seen as occurring further recession unto themselves, which may be litigated against by other citizens and/or the state aggressively.

2.4. Any citizen party lacking proper caveat economically greater should succeed against opposing parties lacking same, being more towards recession under the extenuation regardless of the civil case, cp (with certain rights to civility already eschewed by recession’s draw). Inclination to invoke rules of evidence may continue even when both sides are in caveat, with such agreement's contradiction tending to support the smaller party for the overarching need to secede. It might be natural to assume that less economically endowed parties would be those who drag us into recession, though perhaps the more civil albeit plausibly deniable approach would be to assume that those in power usurped legitimacy causing such trends. Either could be seen as correct, though federal form exempts any and all by secession's extenuation for progress to be had from either hand.

2.5. Such proofing though should help a court to understand the overall predominance of secession's extenuation, with sovereignty in recession being profederal (if there were such a thing) through recession against recession in federal progress thererof.  A court may see how the caveat would have deeper sway in interpretations from the hypocrisy, which should help convince a court under such extenuation to allow recession to stand moreso as direct evidence and so also circumstance toward other claims in-as-far just for the sake of civility, with perhaps no better logical feature nearby for such a major facet--indicating that recession's fog was likely more to blame for any confusion, which would also be expected at least somewhere.

2.6. Recession's clause allowing for blind cases to be heard that normally could not be would perhaps be similar to how one would expect emergency features on other large technology (recalling that govt is freedom's social technology based in matter's quantum logic of mathematics' order of operation, being the largest of technology). Government soverign immunity allows us to put the brakes on recession not in caveat in-turn implying to intelligent citizens that there must be some extenuation at hand, who eventually realize that they should be in caveat for civilian sovereign immunity through secessions superluminal refederation toward convenience by reconvening ahead of time's constant in lawfulness. Civilian sovereign immunity is able to exploit recession's clause.

2.7. One may observe again the logic of the extenuation under Article III by the precedent law of sovereign government immunity and then now consider how such extenuated judgment may apply back the other way, after such inverted rulings have brought about proper caveat towards the moreso constitutional net gain of secession, to be continued or else violate its own logic--in that when parties in caveat even so much as could have a claim against another not the hypocrisy tends to eschew normal consideration in favor of the deeper extenuation, which then may be used in order to adject that further recession would at the very least be direct evidence of circumstances negative.

2.8. The courts should also bear in mind that the extenuation should precede caselaw as well, with recession being more major malfeasance ultimately than an case thereunder. Authorities cited not in caveat against sovereign litigants in caveat may be seen as a confusion of order in operation due to the extenuation able to apply differently toward the caveat for the same causes depending--especially when those cases may not have been fully mature to the caveat's preemptive necessity and so tending to have had confusing or twisted arguments and/or judgments attempting to negotiate such territory unbeknownst (as mentioned in Sec 1 above) which then can be taken out of context by those citing them against caveat inordinately.

2.9. Confusingly and important to note would be a type of cannibal clause which would exist in federal recession when total debt eclipses half of total assets wherein state courts may begin judging against all parties irregardless with it being implied that those in caveat would be able to garner evermore relief duly from the federal courts relief counter-intuitively, in federal support of the caveat in net by the states then in perhaps the only manner acceptable from the law. In stately recession, alignment of the caveat would of course have been through judgment in favor of the sovereign caveat versus progress not (for civilian sovereign immunity superseding government sovereign immunity against progress not in caveat...whereas government sovereign immunity would apply to every case in federal recession).

2.10. In fact, perhaps not one case precedent may exist in stately recession wherein the caveat was shown by a civilian party, with alignment to caveat perhaps having occurred solely via government sovereign immunity rulings--proofing how caselaw in/of the extenuation would be inherently subjective due to the odd modulation of sovereign immunity in recession and the ability for the caveat to even align omnipolarly by it, and then from the inflection point past the federal recession mark's ability to overrule even civilian sovereignty, with no way to prove that such would've been unlawful in stately recession via precedent...making it seem as if government sovereign immunity were overruling any and all parties the whole time as if we were under ancient english law simply because the extenuation's civilian presence could entirely evade caselaw until after federal recession, yet still be required to be recognized constitutionally, though if it were believed as normal precedent not under extenuation improper judgment could lead to fouled subsequent rulings, which would also be impossible to cite against then too (and so such circumstance would prove how caselaw would be technically beholden to constitution in the end, and with such proof being another telltale sign as it were with yet another tell above being federal government's ability to mimic the ancient bygone British definition of sovereign immunity perhaps just for the ability to process any sort of poorer education to wit still left over still driving horses).

2.11. One could become confused by this cannibal feature when recession would become major then denying even civilians in caveat relief due to such then seeming to follow a straight line of recession against progress notwithstanding, otherwise as being precedent, though upon closer inspection that line would have two sides, flipping at the halfway mark between stately and federal recession, blindly to caselaw. If there were some other extenuation at hand that was reliant upon recognizance of the cannibal clause such could go missed much like someone using copy and paste twice on a computer and vanishing their clipping (such as sovereign indigency's disenfranchisement as described in Section 4). At any rate, one may clearly glean how federal efficacy would be able to both draw in recessive aspects to the law in order to serve secession's purposes and then put them on a central stage in government inthrough these very fine legal routes and tests if not for God's very own purposes, tying into jurisdiction higher through federal form as proven by our other exhibits and book Max-Well {Quantum Governance}...being indelible toward progress both beyond secession's union in the next era and in the next life, in a manner far to perfect to normally deny. The logic of secession's union is described further below from another excerpt.

3. The Logic of Secession

3.1. Any mechanism in law able to transmute negative in-with positive also elevating the latter as well may be preponderated as type of ultimate nexus of civility able to be held as a litigatory constant towards substitution in deductive reason, in that because such a certain circumstance may be considered as undeniably true unable to be disproven in/of time's same highest federal shape (by negative and positive change in as one present) it may be used to assist further preponderation of other unknown variables that would normally be less than solvable due to civil rule defaulting toward the unknown.

3.2. Because secession's union would tend to utilize both negative and/or positive in-as one we may then make the argument that a party not in caveat for secession in some way could be seen as less than feasible then which in turn may be considered malfeasant, which would be enough for a civil court to hear a case upon or at the very least to render judgment against any such party versus their government when normally they would be ruled in favor of, which is already of the well-known precedent law under Article III, being sovereign immunity, defaulting toward the government against citizens progressing not in caveat and toward civilians in caveat versus other citizen parties or government in recession, with secession's superluminal union inherently proven to be the most efficient method of progress through recession. Secession's union may be used to solve many other legal questions then due to it's ultimate civility for any party, notwithstanding empirically.

3.3. One may concur that under the rules of evidence that federal form would tend to be exploiting superluminal property of quantum mechanics moreso than not (known as quantum teleportation) in order to remain lawful in time's constancy due to such a physicality being the shortest action by being instantaneous (with the most efficient constitution being the fastest cp) also federating with the universal constant of infinity at the speed of matter's potential in light's energetics i.e. anything other than light should be considered as better than it to some degree under civil rule, indicating the existence of the superluminal in darkness then. Such property inherently would rely upon secession's refederation in order to remain bound materiorily from quantum entanglement's potent position of potential perfection.

3.4. If one draws a line signifying motion from left to right as time's movement of change in progress, the perfect law obviously could rest as a reflection of that for a given people's timeline, and so when any recession naturally occurs we can easily show that simply reversing it through the same process would technically, illogically fall behind the point where perfect progress should have been, in-turn able to be seen as less than lawful under preponderance. If our line began at point A with the imaginarily perfect progress of quantum law in freedom hypothetically flowing straight to B and our entropic society's on a different line falling from A to C at some angle, turning to re-coalesce back onto the perfect line at point D behind B, we could easily observe that the subtractions of the hypotenuses would simply not equate...adding up to more work for less lawfulness.

3.5. When we imagine that recession, entropy, waste or human error would be natural to our cycles, the reality that there must be some sort of mechanism able to transmute error into forward motion becomes apparent through common sense, even if for the processes of learning alone--also supporting mechanisms barring recession from overruling progress via the democratic principle under the hypocrisy of recession (meaning that it would be implied that recessive officials should follow logical pathos moreso proven via mathelogical reasoning instead of being self-destructive by recession's majority per the federal hypocrisy, with no other logic to follow, thereby being recessive in recession against recession via progress thereof federal).

3.6. The inherent paradox should be quite apparent, and that would be that departing from progress would be unfavorable and yet returning to it after having fallen behind evermore latent even less so--implying that recession actually should continue to be forcibly worsened angularly compounding, most legally then--compelling secession as well as stress-testing the entire government in order to better its next version. Once the magic democratic angle of 90 degrees of recession is reached (when total debt would equal half of total assets (recalling E=mc^2) the obvious federal legalities would then be able to activate, with it being most apparent that recession in the economy would be more major then and so able to be democratically argued against finally--also deductively proving via secession's indelible union that democratic principles would be actually of integral law by being able to exploit such duly--with democracy if not hinging upon this critical feature of its own secession's mechanism which may actuate at such point in order to rearrange afflictive matters into propulsion in/of deviance's entropy much like a blues artist turns a bad day into a great song or in the same way that our bodies undergo healing processes which involve pain and inflammation though end arguably better with just a scar and a more than valuable lesson (also supporting that this process would exploit a natural property of matter).

3.7. At these points, federal societies may circle around in ways which defy normal representation, arriving us at better than if we had ever even departed...because only arriving where we would have been should be seen as perhaps less than perfect as well. And so the only logical explanation would be toward some sort of superluminal capability able to place us even further ahead in time considering that the universal constant would normally be the speed of light in and of matter's field by photon--perfectly supported through quantum teleportation of information in quantum entanglement, bound to Article III's mindful ability to adjudge instantly on a case by case basis for the quantum sovereignty via such federal constitution as per, proven prima facie (and as one may glean a faster than light mechanism could even be proven deductively so without physics, also affirming that law would be parent to it). That constitutional potential for superluminal rearrangement would exist in federation of state by secession's union in federal government allows our officials to bind present matters to and from such law through the past's ratification of that constitution toward temporally, atomically sovereign eventide in the future, which would tend to supersede normalcy via a kind of civil transmutation (explained further in exhibit P.5) rerouting devolution, war, incompetency, etc similar to how good humor can make the same otherwise foul matters extremely enjoyable.

3.8. The specter would be efficient enough for anyone to claim that normal government would be perhaps less than lawful moving at the speed of light alone in such a less exotic respect...though yet another may claim that a government moving faster than the speed of light alone would also be less than perfect considering that such would not represent the federal shape of time's parent form, however impossibly cynical. Such considerations should leave the only conclusion that a most lawful government would be federal by and through the exploitation of any and all of time's mechanisms when and wherever appropriate, eschewing all else ceteris paribus in the face of such solid proof with perhaps no way for observed and measured physical laws to be disproven otherwise (in that order of operations may be asserted prima facie).

3.9. For example, leaving home without a gun would be dangerous though bringing one without a safety could be worse...just like having a body that could not heal could be seen as worse than being a spirit alone. Secession's healing mechanism would be as important toward governance as reconciliation would be in relationships, obviously resting in the matter at some indelible degree; therefore, sovereignty's extenuation should come first for any case, with such only becoming apparent under recession's extenuation which may rule abnormally against progress not within secession's refederation's superluminal caveat--requited to interpret implicit constitutional law not codified for as able to be seen as moreso out of favor than not untowards such otherwise recessive civilians, defaulting in favor of government sovereignty in recession by being less recessive than such progress not in caveat and toward civilian sovereignty in caveat for secession above all else under the 9th Amendment in federal logic, even under the federal cannibal clause.

3.10. The consideration that normal wear and tear will of course occur and even that it should in certain circumstances for the purposes of learning and patina should be the final proof for such argument that recession would be a type of occurrence which truly lawful government should not just have the capability to withstand but to complement, implying that such momentum be transmuted towards sovereign progress, and so having laws which incorporate such able to harness the power of matter superluminally via quantum entanglement towards secession's being used as fulcrum intoward higher reunions thereby realigning in-with time's flow coming in ahead of normal law for the next cycle, allows for federal civilians to assuage ancient issues similar to how certain destructive quality control engineers destroy company products in order to better their designs and so their company overall. Such consideration would be akin to taking our imaginary social progress line further above and just drawing a Fleur de Lis with it...and perhaps then recycling the paper it was drawn upon or using it as tender to start a fire for the night to enjoy, which would be metaphor much more suited for the actual nature of the law in the courts beyond mere math though also of it too in highest federal form...godly greed, so to speak. From such angle we may begin to assert that secession's advent would be indelible by and for the matter and surely an event which would have to occur at least moreso than not at either hand then, especially with regard to demonstration's purpose for the sake of posterity.

3.11. At any rate, the graphs further below demonstrate the basic mathematical logic of recession's inherent malfeasance, which only becomes moreso apparent when recession becomes federal, and fleetingly enough at such point government may begin cannibalizing against all parties irregardless at the state level due to any case passing federal question then, in-turn able to inure the caveat evermore counter-intuitively via federal relief from such adverse rulings on top of their original claims. And even within the cannibal clause there does exist extenuation for states to offer special exceptions to indigency for the federal cause, such as by Texas Rule 91, which is clarified more in the next section.

4. The Cannibal Clause, Sovereign Indigency's Disenfranchisement & Jurisprudential's Proof

4.1. (The following was adapted from a case against The State of Texas appealed to the 15th COA (Stringfellow v Texas Comptroller, Case 15-25-00035-CV).

4.2. When recession becomes federal, government may actually begin cannibalizing citizens irrespective to the caveat by judging against any and every party irregardless due to federal recession's guilt superseding state cause, and for it would be implied that those within caveat would gain even more from extenuated federal relief duly once appeals reached such setting, furthering the evolutionary gap of justice and allowing nature to take her course by and against recession at the same time. The fact that such otherwise disrespect would tend to appear as corruption associating with recession would only serve to re-affirm the counter intuitivity of recessive legitimacy toward superluminal refederation higher, and also tend to suggest that those in government and society not familiar with decency in law could not just become confused, yet also tend to be but confused at the same time by those forgetting that civility still must maintain federally in kind.

4.3. With the above being stated, the state does have a constitutional right to claim sovereign government immunity though it should be well-understood that any confusion otherwise such as perhaps any claims of states being less than competent or acceptable should be seen as less than appropriate, especially considering that the states would be foremost in a union of government's highest form in/of socio-technological achievement now preeminent in the world via a most peculiar manner by federal metamorphosis' union in secession's indelible advent...and so one would be left with the assumption that the law has been following the higher path of caveat with respect due to such claims being therefore federally frivolous and lawful at the same time, obviously towards eventually surrendering the highest relief towards the caveat vested in the people's government via affirming the dichotomy necessary for secession's fractures to ultimately prevail toward even better reunion, however surprisingly unexpectedly counter-intuitively reaffirming. Max-Well Sec 2.4.4.2 would further correlate with such argument, which basically posits that recessive states would not just impart their own extraneous energies but also goings on therein would compound, such as Thimerosal in the vaccines in our own situation, GMO's, etc, etc...leaving no way out other than through the light of the caveat.

4.4. Recession's being superluminal would serve as the final justification of such argument herein, due to any assumption otherwise with respect tending to be able to be harnessed by federal mechanism into evermore constitutional states of alliance, with the caveat aligning in the highest order notwithstanding inbetween the dichotomy therefore lending immunity under the Article III precedent for sovereignty, with federal recession’s cannibal clause serving to retort all else towards the minority logic as it were mostly major, felled by the fact that this first instance of secession is extenuating due to the need to cause recession for no other apparent reason in order to highlight crime that occurred in times before our government was ratified, which may seem long ago to us now but in a thousand years will seem like just the other day. How else would the precedent have aligned to the caveat prior if not for by being judged in favor of somehow, even through disfavor by the matter's ability, in undeniable support...with competency being inherently sovereign to the matter's entanglement in being the federal positive despite all, proving that a court should obey the will of the caveat in the people moreso (even though either side would enfranchise).

4.5. If a minority will in the people may occur judgment in favor of the caveat against the majority in recession, there should be no way to prove at least lawfully from a democratic fashion that any sort of majority opinion should be able to prevail against sovereignty under recession's primly odd extenuation, and with sovereignty actually being the definition of competency otherwise notwithstanding...leaving the cannibal clause to be the better explanation for judgment against the caveat at the state level then--as extenuation upon the extenuation of the extenuation...perhaps cannibalizing us all until we allow the law to at the very least run its course if not for the sake of the relief alone, in-for secession's own indelible record.

4.6. When paradoxically indigent sovereign civilian litigants possess so many similar cases concurrently and no relief from the state, there should be a marked constitution towards sacrificing a higher relief obtainable from federal appeal in at least one of those cases so that those plaintiffs may have the funds necessary to even obtain those types of higher reliefs from their other cases being protracted by the indelibly federal logic of the state by the hypocrisy, in that why would a state compel federal relief via claiming sovereignty against its own sovereignty on one hand but yet prevent those litigants from being able to even reach a federal setting due to indigency caused by such on the other?...indicating that special exception should be made in order to disenfranchise sovereign indigency, with the term being paradoxical.

4.7. The subject matter of their other cases would be inherently more moot due to the caveat taking precedent ceteris paribus, meaning that litigation thereunder would tend to become about the same in cause as recession eventually conjoined, canceling out into such direct requests for sovereign enfranchisement becoming moreso constitutional for sovereign indigency. As such, a simple request by the caveat resting in the people of whom governmental technology in freedom serves should be enough to legally sway a civil court toward judging in favor as being the most lawful route under such furthering extenuation of hypocritical sovereign indigency, which may not stand most primarily under the Article III precedent for sovereign immunity however cannibalized--for what state would cannibalize the famished emaciated well? State denial of relief toward sovereign immunity via claiming sovereign immunity in ourselves would only be able to be interpreted atomically in support of federal relief under the Article III precedent--in turn supporting special exception for sovereign indigency's disenfranchisement.

4.8. No matter how post-logical the cannibal clause may be towards compelling the inurement of sovereignty through federal causes impelled by such counter-intuitive judgment, such clause may not function without fodder to consume in the first place as far as litigation would be concerned with respect to indigency (being an emergency), in that a government attempting to operate on judgment in logic may not seek its own doom through its own sovereignty’s illogical disenfranchisement, and so direct requests may be made for benches to exercise due jurisprudence and so award reliefs requested so that the next iteration of secession's superluminal refederation may even come about, which Texas Rule 91 and similar motions for special exceptions elsewhere would be able to serve precisely for, in support...for it would be obvious that judging mechanically across the board with respect to the sovereign caveat federally under-federated could be unwise considering that there may have been areas which may not have been aware of the extenuation at hand prior who may have criminally violated the rights of sovereignty by not recognizing when and where such would not be appropriate which could in-theory have undercut the entire process and must therefore be accounted for diligently, which would tend to be confirmed moreso then not by organic sovereignty declaring that they were not expectant toward a federal advent accordingly (i.e. that a civilian party having achieved sovereign caveat would serve to legally verify their own such word...in that their being and indigent sovereign would tend to serve as proof of some extraneous error deserving emergency correction). And verily recession's clause would affirm that mistakes would be more likely in recession, ergo an obvious tell again.

4.9. The point of recession's extenuation would be to inure the caveat by upholding sovereignty against insovereignty under the Article III precedent, which may be done via the cannibal clause evermore through empirical theory, though in cases where it may be heard that potential of sovereignty had not been being perfectly respected however necessary to procure the caveat, such obviously would have endangered these delicate high-stakes processes at the same time simply from the affidavits of indigency from such sovereignty, and so a state should be compelled to stint if such may be possible when especially requested legally, properly. If sovereign litigants possess other ongoing cases with respect to similar claims as well as more to come and if they are indigent and short on time, the caveat would be better supported into federal circumstance via triageing with at least just one simple case being relieved at the state level--thereby satisfying the hypocrisy of the federal. Just because secession's keel may allow us to tact into the wind and that federal recession may allow us to metaphorically foil for even greater speed, that does not mean that we should lock in at such speed notwithstanding recklessly when and if we notice that perhaps our ship was not perfectly constructed, the water too rough our our course needing to be adjusted first, etc, lest we wreck and defeat our own purposes. The sheer definition of federal would be hypocritically violated if the law were not able to bend and flex with the implicit nature of recession's extenuation being federal moreso.

4.10. Even though recession would be necessary to cause secession notwithstanding, the public must still be able to function well enough to even be able to secede against recession for the superluminal refederation higher to be gained in the first place, and to judge otherwise would be uncivil unto incompetent. Just as much as someone without sovereign caveat may apply for a driver's license or a work visa and still obtain one, someone within caveat with a legitimate cause who has been improperly disenfranchised if at all against sovereignty for whatever reason...even if for their own alignment to it...who has brought legitimate proof before a court in a federal recession may be judged in favor of if they so sovereignly request it when it may be seen that they are indigent in federal need as long as they have been pursuing federal directions otherwise and they have been personally injured, for common sense would show that secession's sovereignty must prevail even against itself, because how could a state deny relief for intentional torts against citizens not in caveat and not impart the same extenuated justice for those within by overriding up the other way if need be, implying that in certain cases special exceptions may be made when and where appropriate. To hypocritically block attempts at that same sovereign cause by those succumbing to such detriment would be illogical and insovereign, because it has been shown that however counter-intuitive such's impetus may be toward higher federal reliefs via, special cases involving sovereign indigency may be seen as special exceptions due to those natural shortcomings elsewhere occurred unduly then, for not everyone had been perfectly aware of the extenuation upon the extenuation...and after all federal form bears the shape of time in nature: past and future in present, matter and space in federal potential of spacetime.

4.11. If there were a type of case that could be spared under federal recession's cannibal clause for the sake of its own federal form, sovereign indigency's reversal would be it...for federal form may apply both ways and also one ad infinitum or more in such fractalling, finally in an ultimate proof and support of the empirical jurisprudential most ultimately, confirmed by the mechanisms of thought in judgment being based upon quantum entanglement's superluminal constitution of instantaneous informational transfer in the mind's apparatus of socio-technological governance built upon the field of logic in spacetime by the matter of matters. Jurisprudence should see the depravity of the argument and spare the state such embarrassment if not prosecution in-from a federal setting therefore less in line with the caveat.