https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

"445"

Doubt differential equations? Defense Department enraged? Is that what Barack Obama means?

My diff eq is right, what is this about? Maybe it's not about me, but I'll assume it is.

Of course my diff eq is right, is some assertion being made that I didn't prove the Hodge Conjecture or SAC problem right? My published math breakthroughs were all correct, at least assuming that I analyzed the H.C. paper well enough to understand the terminology correctly--if I proved a different conjecture, I'd be happy to hear some comments on that, given that I'm illegally isolated right now.

In particular, I don't see a substantive response to my last point, which Obama has apparently conceded; it looks like he concedes that nothing I have said is classified, which means whether or not my claims about my breakthroughs are being subjected to more anti-disabled smears by a clearly unhealthy former President who appears not to have ever gotten adequate treatment for a Substance Abuse Disorder issue, I am surely good to be released...the President has no more objections, one or the other, to my conduct, and has now perhaps taken to incorrectly criticizing my diff eq research, which, since I bought a textbook to understand diff eq (Steven Krantz), I definitely got right, since I understand the statement of Navier-Stokes, which I resolved (it's option c), well enough that I could express the whole proposition formally in purely logic and set theory terms.

So, any more objections at all to releasing me? Anti-talent smears, fake claims that I've done something wrong, false allegations of poor character? State your case or support my release at once!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:46:32 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/
>
> "445"
>
> Doubt differential equations? Defense Department enraged? Is that what Barack Obama means?
>
> My diff eq is right, what is this about? Maybe it's not about me, but I'll assume it is.
>
> Of course my diff eq is right, is some assertion being made that I didn't prove the Hodge Conjecture or SAC problem right? My published math breakthroughs were all correct, at least assuming that I analyzed the H.C. paper well enough to understand the terminology correctly--if I proved a different conjecture, I'd be happy to hear some comments on that, given that I'm illegally isolated right now.
>
> In particular, I don't see a substantive response to my last point, which Obama has apparently conceded; it looks like he concedes that nothing I have said is classified, which means whether or not my claims about my breakthroughs are being subjected to more anti-disabled smears by a clearly unhealthy former President who appears not to have ever gotten adequate treatment for a Substance Abuse Disorder issue, I am surely good to be released...the President has no more objections, one or the other, to my conduct, and has now perhaps taken to incorrectly criticizing my diff eq research, which, since I bought a textbook to understand diff eq (Steven Krantz), I definitely got right, since I understand the statement of Navier-Stokes, which I resolved (it's option c), well enough that I could express the whole proposition formally in purely logic and set theory terms.
>
> So, any more objections at all to releasing me? Anti-talent smears, fake claims that I've done something wrong, false allegations of poor character? State your case or support my release at once!
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

OK, here is Obama's latest comment:

https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

At 5:44 p.m.

"NO" and, since I'm not watching the video, the phrase comes out to, BBCT.

So either it's "no" to the Bruce Wayne theory, or it's no to TCBB...the truth close with circuit value?

Is he saying that my "theory"--my argument about how it is legal for me to react to harassment with mean comments that would otherwise indeed be considered harassment if I were starting a verbal fight is incorrect? Would you care to cite a statute for that? You cannot possibly claim that my conduct is illegal in the eyes of any court when you are avoiding court so ardently that you refuse to even justify your outrageous actions, including torture, attempted espionage, treason, murder, and attempted murder, by writing to me via email. You are trying to talk about laws "with deniability," so that you can avoid admitting to your felonious criminal past, present, and future.

Indeed, no lawyer has approached the bar to discuss my claim with a judge in court, so it's your word as a crooked murdered against mine, a law abiding citizen with an always drug-free psychologically healthy mind, a 100% honest track record, recently at least, and excellent debating and logic skills.

This latest excuse for holding me as a prisoner is incorrect. If you'd like to have a legal debate, you need to cite a federal statute. Since you don't even live in Virginia and are a lazy criminal, let's go with this one, one I've never violated that you are quite fond of violating yourself, particularly when you were in the WH:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Let's focus on these parts of the law:

Whoever—
(1) ..., with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that—

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.

No, I will not waste my time hiring a lawyer when you and your mob have *yourselves intimidated lawyers* into not speaking to me, and the entire population of Virginia into speaking to me. I can't even get full service from IP lawyers, apparently because you have threatened people if they don't deny me proper service.

The legal definition of intimidation is here:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intimidation

The legal definition of harassment is here:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Just to pick one incident of me standing up to a criminal that Barack Obama is probably whining about so he can keep me as a slave (note, he lost the argument about contractor names being classified, but wants another chance to find an excuse to detain me forever, even though he cannot possibly win at this):

I was speaking to a cashier at CVS and had prepared an "anti-harassment line" to repeat in case I was threatened, intimidated, discriminated against and harassed, or denied service again. Every I go to the CVS, the people nastily ask me--in a fairly calm tone of voice--"What did you say your last name is again?"--whenever I say that my name is "Philip White" or that my last name is "White" when asked the first time. I read that, correctly I'm sure, as an attempt to intimidate me, showing me that a) I am disabled, and my complaints to law enforcement or anyone else (like the CRD at DOJ, which my grandfather, William Wilson White, was even the first boss of decades ago) will be ignored--and that's true, I've checked, and b) that I am a white person, and human trafficking of white men and women--"white slavery"--happens all the time, and lots of people take years or more to get out of it.

The first time I dealt with the evil CVS cashier, who was a black man, he asked my name twice, and I repeated my first line, "Does it matter?", which is a hint about customer service being important. I don't like death threats, discrimination, scary pro-slavery innuendo, or attempted "shock comments" that are supposed like delusional projection ("but...but...you're the black guy, why I am being enslaved now, my ancestors helped your ancestors get liberated? Why...why aren't you grateful?? Waaaaa!! Mommy!"...is what I'm supposed to say).

The second time I came back, and the bad guy, who had already broken the law and the ADA once, didn't ask me my last twice. Instead, he revealed that he had lied about the prescription being ready in an hour...I had come back a little over 1 hour later, and now he claimed that the prescription wasn't ready--deliberate annoying lying and denial of service, as the CVS had done to me before in months past.

So, I said my line: "At least it's 'cheap and punctual.'" The innuendo is, "The fact that you have aligned yourself with pro-human-trafficking bad guys sets up you yourself up to be murdered, as a black man allying with the KKK types, with no Secret Service to protect you. By infuriating and threatening me, working to try to make me look helpless and trying to damage ability to look strong as I use that image to push my way out of my slavery situation, you threaten to kill me and enslave, and I'm sure you know that. Thus, I will react to your implicit death threat with a comment: If you, like any other slavery-helping lunatic, black or white or any other race, died via a violent murder, I would not care. I would think about the bullet that killed you and say to myself, 'good, I'm glad the Confederate lunatic is dead.' I wouldn't kill you or aid or abet such efforts; I will merely mention to you that whatever bullet might kill you, literal or metaphorical, is not one I would lose any sleep over. Whatever kills you will be like your dopey pro-Confederate labor--cheap to the point of worthlessness, and probably arriving right on time, not late or early."

There is nothing wrong with asserting myself to someone who wants to kill me, who works for a firm that wants to enslave and kill me. I think black people should stand up to any pro-slavery, pro-Trump types who say stuff like that to them in a similar way. It's simply a notification: By sucking up to people who hate you too, you are inviting your own death, and I just don't care.

That isn't stalking or harassment; the purpose is to assert myself to someone who is part of a team that habitually seeks to stalk and intimidate me. My reaction is perfectly justified, and not prejudiced, repeatedly bothering anyone, or an attempt to pressure anyone to do anything other than not continually threaten to kill/enslave me--I am trying to make illegal behaviors stop without access to law enforcement, which Obama has helped deprive me of.

It is also not intimidation...the perpetrator who once against stalked me at the CVS while working there, like so many before him, was not pressured or obstructed or impeded from doing anything. Go ahead and talk to all the lawyers and cops and FBI agents and judges and crooked politicians you want....I just told you how much I care about pro-human-trafficking idiots like you: Not at all, I don't care if you drop dead.

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 07:22:33 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:46:32 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/
> >
> > "445"
> >
> > Doubt differential equations? Defense Department enraged? Is that what Barack Obama means?
> >
> > My diff eq is right, what is this about? Maybe it's not about me, but I'll assume it is.
> >
> > Of course my diff eq is right, is some assertion being made that I didn't prove the Hodge Conjecture or SAC problem right? My published math breakthroughs were all correct, at least assuming that I analyzed the H.C. paper well enough to understand the terminology correctly--if I proved a different conjecture, I'd be happy to hear some comments on that, given that I'm illegally isolated right now.
> >
> > In particular, I don't see a substantive response to my last point, which Obama has apparently conceded; it looks like he concedes that nothing I have said is classified, which means whether or not my claims about my breakthroughs are being subjected to more anti-disabled smears by a clearly unhealthy former President who appears not to have ever gotten adequate treatment for a Substance Abuse Disorder issue, I am surely good to be released....the President has no more objections, one or the other, to my conduct, and has now perhaps taken to incorrectly criticizing my diff eq research, which, since I bought a textbook to understand diff eq (Steven Krantz), I definitely got right, since I understand the statement of Navier-Stokes, which I resolved (it's option c), well enough that I could express the whole proposition formally in purely logic and set theory terms.
> >
> > So, any more objections at all to releasing me? Anti-talent smears, fake claims that I've done something wrong, false allegations of poor character? State your case or support my release at once!
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> OK, here is Obama's latest comment:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/
>
> At 5:44 p.m.
>
> "NO" and, since I'm not watching the video, the phrase comes out to, BBCT..
>
> So either it's "no" to the Bruce Wayne theory, or it's no to TCBB...the truth close with circuit value?
>
> Is he saying that my "theory"--my argument about how it is legal for me to react to harassment with mean comments that would otherwise indeed be considered harassment if I were starting a verbal fight is incorrect? Would you care to cite a statute for that? You cannot possibly claim that my conduct is illegal in the eyes of any court when you are avoiding court so ardently that you refuse to even justify your outrageous actions, including torture, attempted espionage, treason, murder, and attempted murder, by writing to me via email. You are trying to talk about laws "with deniability," so that you can avoid admitting to your felonious criminal past, present, and future.
>
> Indeed, no lawyer has approached the bar to discuss my claim with a judge in court, so it's your word as a crooked murdered against mine, a law abiding citizen with an always drug-free psychologically healthy mind, a 100% honest track record, recently at least, and excellent debating and logic skills.
>
> This latest excuse for holding me as a prisoner is incorrect. If you'd like to have a legal debate, you need to cite a federal statute. Since you don't even live in Virginia and are a lazy criminal, let's go with this one, one I've never violated that you are quite fond of violating yourself, particularly when you were in the WH:
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A
>
> Let's focus on these parts of the law:
>
> Whoever—
> (1) ..., with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that—
>
> (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
> (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or
> (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),
> shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.
>
>
> No, I will not waste my time hiring a lawyer when you and your mob have *yourselves intimidated lawyers* into not speaking to me, and the entire population of Virginia into speaking to me. I can't even get full service from IP lawyers, apparently because you have threatened people if they don't deny me proper service.
>
>
> The legal definition of intimidation is here:
>
> https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intimidation
>
> The legal definition of harassment is here:
>
> https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
>
>
> Just to pick one incident of me standing up to a criminal that Barack Obama is probably whining about so he can keep me as a slave (note, he lost the argument about contractor names being classified, but wants another chance to find an excuse to detain me forever, even though he cannot possibly win at this):
>
> I was speaking to a cashier at CVS and had prepared an "anti-harassment line" to repeat in case I was threatened, intimidated, discriminated against and harassed, or denied service again. Every I go to the CVS, the people nastily ask me--in a fairly calm tone of voice--"What did you say your last name is again?"--whenever I say that my name is "Philip White" or that my last name is "White" when asked the first time. I read that, correctly I'm sure, as an attempt to intimidate me, showing me that a) I am disabled, and my complaints to law enforcement or anyone else (like the CRD at DOJ, which my grandfather, William Wilson White, was even the first boss of decades ago) will be ignored--and that's true, I've checked, and b) that I am a white person, and human trafficking of white men and women--"white slavery"--happens all the time, and lots of people take years or more to get out of it.
>
> The first time I dealt with the evil CVS cashier, who was a black man, he asked my name twice, and I repeated my first line, "Does it matter?", which is a hint about customer service being important. I don't like death threats, discrimination, scary pro-slavery innuendo, or attempted "shock comments" that are supposed like delusional projection ("but...but...you're the black guy, why I am being enslaved now, my ancestors helped your ancestors get liberated? Why...why aren't you grateful?? Waaaaa!! Mommy!"...is what I'm supposed to say).
>
> The second time I came back, and the bad guy, who had already broken the law and the ADA once, didn't ask me my last twice. Instead, he revealed that he had lied about the prescription being ready in an hour...I had come back a little over 1 hour later, and now he claimed that the prescription wasn't ready--deliberate annoying lying and denial of service, as the CVS had done to me before in months past.
>
> So, I said my line: "At least it's 'cheap and punctual.'" The innuendo is, "The fact that you have aligned yourself with pro-human-trafficking bad guys sets up you yourself up to be murdered, as a black man allying with the KKK types, with no Secret Service to protect you. By infuriating and threatening me, working to try to make me look helpless and trying to damage ability to look strong as I use that image to push my way out of my slavery situation, you threaten to kill me and enslave, and I'm sure you know that. Thus, I will react to your implicit death threat with a comment: If you, like any other slavery-helping lunatic, black or white or any other race, died via a violent murder, I would not care. I would think about the bullet that killed you and say to myself, 'good, I'm glad the Confederate lunatic is dead.' I wouldn't kill you or aid or abet such efforts; I will merely mention to you that whatever bullet might kill you, literal or metaphorical, is not one I would lose any sleep over. Whatever kills you will be like your dopey pro-Confederate labor--cheap to the point of worthlessness, and probably arriving right on time, not late or early."
>
> There is nothing wrong with asserting myself to someone who wants to kill me, who works for a firm that wants to enslave and kill me. I think black people should stand up to any pro-slavery, pro-Trump types who say stuff like that to them in a similar way. It's simply a notification: By sucking up to people who hate you too, you are inviting your own death, and I just don't care.
>
> That isn't stalking or harassment; the purpose is to assert myself to someone who is part of a team that habitually seeks to stalk and intimidate me.. My reaction is perfectly justified, and not prejudiced, repeatedly bothering anyone, or an attempt to pressure anyone to do anything other than not continually threaten to kill/enslave me--I am trying to make illegal behaviors stop without access to law enforcement, which Obama has helped deprive me of.
>
> It is also not intimidation...the perpetrator who once against stalked me at the CVS while working there, like so many before him, was not pressured or obstructed or impeded from doing anything. Go ahead and talk to all the lawyers and cops and FBI agents and judges and crooked politicians you want...I just told you how much I care about pro-human-trafficking idiots like you: Not at all, I don't care if you drop dead.
>
> I'm usually nice though.
>
> The point is, I despise discrimination, crime, and slavery. I asserted myself legally. Barack Obama is again reaching for absurd arguments to justify what is already obviously totally unjustifiable. He is trying to influence dummies who don't think too hard into despising me because I spoke assertively to a black man who was threatening me illegally treating me badly. I speak very viciously, within the law, to all people, regardless of ethnicity, for such horrifying behavior. It's not the single act of asking me to repeat my name or frequently denying my service; it's the idea that some guy thinks that black skin is a free pass to support white slavery, and that he thinks he can get away unscathed by breaking the law against me in a discriminatory way.
>
> I never let that happen these days; I don't let black people, white people, Russian people, Muslim people, Jewish people, or any other people intimidate me, discriminate against me, or illegally violate my rights without putting up a verbal within the law. And I won; I'm pleased with that, and having nothing to be ashamed of. Slavery is wrong, no matter who the victim is..
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)