The Occult Meanings of Represent: Why You Can Not Represent Yourself in Court


To know why you can not “represent” yourself in court, you need to study the definitions of the word represent and find its deeper meanings. You also need to ask yourself this question: “How could I represent myself when I am already myself living in a body made of flesh and blood?” One of the common definitions of the word represent is “to act or speak officially for (someone or something)”. Based on this definition, when you represent someone or something, you are acting or speaking for it.

Here are other common definitions of the word represent from

  • “to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize:”
  • “to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like:”
  • “to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does:”
  • “to speak and act for by delegated authority:”
  • “to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government:”
  • “to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does:”
  • “to present or picture to the mind.”

Here is the definition of the word represent from Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edition):

To appear in the character of; personate; to exhibit; to expose before the eyes. To represent a thing is to produce it publicly. To represent a person is to stand in his place; to speak or act with authority on behalf of such person; to supply his place; to act as his substitute or agent.

The Occult Meanings of the Word Represent

All the definitions above are basically telling you that the word represent means to act in the capacity for something. When you “represent” yourself, you are actually acting for something outside of you and therefore it is NOT truly you. Because you are acting for something outside of you, you can not represent yourself.

On the Earth plane, you can not physically be in two places during the exact time. Furthermore, you can not be something and something else during the exact time. In this dimension, you have your own frequency signature, and therefore you can not be two exact things during the exact time. If two things were exactly the same, you would not be able to tell the difference between them, even down to the atomic and DNA level.

In one of the previous paragraphs, the first phrase says “To appear in the character of”. The words you need to pay attention to in this phrase are appear and character. You also need to pay attention to the word person. In legalese, the word person usually means an artificial person. This “person” is not you because it is a dead fictional character.

One of the origins of the word appear is the Latin word apparere, which is derived from the Latin words ad(“to”) and parere (“to come forth, be visible”). The word appear has a strong connection to magic (magick), which is why it is used a lot by fake or real magicians. These magicians like to make things appear (be visible) and disappear (be invisible) right in front of your eyes.

Like magicians, judges also like to make things appear and disappear. This is why the letter that they used to notify you to appear in court is called a summons. To summon you to court is to call you to appear in court using the power of words and magic, similar to how witches summon spirits to appear in front of them. The word summons is defined as “A form of legal process that commands the defendant to appearbefore the court on a specific day and to answer the complaint made by the plaintiff.”

In my article titled The Magic Power of Words and Why Words Rule the World, I said that judges are magicians, which is why they are sometimes called magistrates. Here is an excerpt from that article:

In legal terms, the word magistrate is defined as “any individual who has the power of a public civil officer or inferior judicial officer, such as a Justice of the Peace”. Magistrate can also be defined as “a civil officer charged with the administration of the law”. To find the occult definition of the word magistrate, you need to split it into two words (magi-strate). The word you need to pay attention to ismagi. One of the origins of the word magi is the Latin word magi (plural of magus), meaning “magician, learned magician”. Hence, the words magistrate, magician, magic, and magistery.

As for the word character, it is defined as “the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.” The word character originated from the Latin word character and the Greek word kharakter, meaning “engraved mark,” also “symbol or imprint on the soul”. In other words, a character is a mark or symbol used to identify something. The word character can also mean “symbol or drawing used in sorcery“.

Phonetically, the word character sounds similar to “care-actor”. The word care is derived from the Old English words caru and cearu, meaning “sorrow, anxiety, grief,” also “burdens of mind; serious mental attention”. Based on these occult definitions, a character/care-actor is an actor with serious mental problems. A character is a symbol and therefore it is not you, the man (male or female) with a body made of flesh and blood.

Because a character is a symbol, it is an artificial person and therefore it needs your life force energy tocharge it with life. This is why the legal system has to charge you first before summoning you to appear in court. They charge you first because they are planning to trick you to give up your life force energy, so that it can be used to charge the character/legal person/dead person and give it life.

Why You Can Not Represent Yourself in Court

When you are in a courtroom and the judge asks you if you are representing yourself, what he is really doing is tricking you to agree to represent your legal person (character), which is an artificial person, also known as a corporation. This artificial person is sometimes referred to as the legal name, which is asymbol or character used by the legal system to identify you and mark you with the “mark of the beast”. Do you remember what I said earlier that the word character originated from the Latin word character and the Greek word kharakter, meaning “engraved mark,” also “symbol or imprint on the soul”?

You, the living man (male or female), can not represent yourself because you are already yourself. To represent yourself is to act in the capacity for something artificial, such as a legal person/artificial person/dead person/character/corporation. Because you (the living man) is not artificial/dead, you can not represent yourself. However, you can represent something other than yourself that is artificial. In other words, as a living man you can present yourself in court, but can only represent an artificial thing.

When you split the word represent into two words it becomes re-present. The prefix re comes from the Latin word re, meaning “again, back, anew, against“. How could you “represent” yourself more than once during the exact time in court? Furthermore, why would you want to “represent” yourself but during the same time be against (re) yourself?

The word present is defined as “being, existing, or occurring at this time or now; current”. But be aware that one of the earliest definitions of the word present is “thing offered, what is offered or given as a gift”. Based on these two definitions, when you present yourself in court, you are presenting yourself in the present time or presenting yourself as a gift. Because of this, you need to let the judge know that you are in court to present yourself during that present moment in time and not as a gift.

Because you now know the occult meanings of the word represent, whenever a judge ask you if you are representing yourself in court, you should tell him that you can not represent yourself because you are already yourself and a living man or woman.

The legal system is full of words that have many different meanings, and therefore it is nearly impossible to know what the judge really means when he speaks. For example, when a judge says “person”, he could be talking about a natural person, artificial person, corporation, or anything that is artificial. Because of this, it is best to stay out of court whenever possible.

“Confusion of Voice”: 4 of 9



One thought on “The Occult Meanings of Represent: Why You Can Not Represent Yourself in Court

  1. It’s an extremely bizarre world, the court. As I found out one day, entering the office of justice and being ordered to wait in a queue for a body scan and having my bag searched, causing me to arrive 10 minutes late, finding the judge almost ready to leave. The atmosphere in the hall, with about 8 law obiding policemen present, plus the people who checked the bodyscan and bags, was extremely paranoid and tense. Thick with suspicion.

    I went to court, by my own choice, for being accused of having deliberately ignored to inform the wellfare system for taking up my pension early. I wasn’t allowed to receive this, according to their rules, and they took it from me by witholding it from my monthly allowance, asking for a sum of 2000 euro as punishment. Which forced me to enter registration for the foodbank for 6 months.

    Sitting in a courtroom with 2 other people, for the first time in my life, my answer to the judge, when she asked me “Why didn’t you inform the wellfare system about your decision to take up your pension early?” was “I wasn’t informed about how the wellfare system looks at it. I can’t be held accountable for something I don’t know. I can’t ask about something I don’t know it exists, can I? When I came for registration I’ve been in the office for about 2 minutes”

    I was offered a hand without making eye contact, I handed over my ID evidence and was given a brochure with the other hand. Soon after sent away with “You will receive a decision within 3 weeks, good luck” without looking at me even for 1 second.

    After hearing my response, the judge was silent for a while, than looked at the council member representing the wellfare system and asked him his opinion. He shook his head and said “We can’t make an exception, if we allow this client to get away with it we have to treat others like her the same way and we can’t do that”

    That answer was an utterly flimsy argument in my ears and it made me wish for very long arms so that I could grasp his neck for one moment with a very tight grip. I could’ve gone into a fight with him, but I felt that this wouldn’t serve my case, in trying to save my hard earned pension money and getting rid of that punishment of 2000 euro.

    The session was declared as having come to its end and the judge told me that a decision would be sent to me by a letter. It came about 6 weeks later, 10 months after the wellfare system’s decision to punish me. The sum was reduced to 1/4th and to this day I’ve never received a reminder to pay.
    I’ve chosen to ignore the whole affair. Possibly the judge managed to allow “the verdict” to “get lost”.

    I’ve decided to write to the man who represented Dutch residents that had some sort of issue with the government, regarding regulations and rules, no criminal acts but requests for justice being done to them. I’ve written a report about my experiences with the wellfare system in my city and threw all my fury in it with a thick layer of snow queen icing.

    It’s an extremely clear and hilarious document and it was received with gratitude and appreciation.
    If it was my report or those of others I’m not sure, but the effect that it has had on his research of financial punishment forced onto people living with a wellfare income, is that he made such a good and convincing case in the governmental debate, that a decision was made, to end all punishments ordered by the wellfare system, from the first day of 2015.

    That outcome was supported by the fact that the government had found out that the wellfare system had a huge sum in a bankaccount with fees from clients like me and had decided to investigate this unreasonable procedure and abuse of power. “You can’t pick feathers from an already bald chicken” was this helpful man’s argument, during the debate.

    In a way I’ve had my reward for making efforts. My income wasn’t reduced to 75 % anymore, at the start of 2015. My efforts to have my money back in retrospect were futile. I knew I shouldn’t expect such a flexible attitude, but I just felt I should give it a try and ask. The answer was “No”.

    And now a genuine basic income debate is going on in Holland. My city will be the first to try out such an experiment. The basic income concept is made in the 60’s during the hippie year, when many left the tread mill of a 9-7 workroutine. Patience and perseverance are good companions on such a journey.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: