Of either the Separations Clause or Legal Exemption Clause or the Imaginary Caveat Clause. Pretty sure it's the Imaginary Caveat Clause. "This contract is superordinate to any and all
rules, terms, and/or legislation. Any
rules, terms, or legislation (past, present, or
future) that intend to and/or would allow you to circumvent the requirements of the terms of service are considered an 'Imaginary Caveat' and, therefore, do not apply." This is to prevent worthless, shit-head CEOs and the corrupt politicians the collude with from saying "
WeLl YOU SiGnEd OuR tErMs!" It doesn't matter. Mine is superordinate to yours and, therefore, takes precedence and renders
everything I sign, meaningless (as I an not under any requirement abide any law, term, or legislation as per the Legal Exemption Clause).
Hym Iam "Additionally, it prevents you from saying '
Well MY terms are EVEN MORE superordinate than THAT!' As it would be a redundancy intended to circumvent the terms of service and would, therefore, constitute an Imaginary Caveat. Saying 'No You' is an 'Imaginary Caveat.' Saying 'something-something non-sequitur' is a 'Imaginary Caveat.' The Superordinacy Statute doesn't mean that I WON'T agree to terms (in abstraction) but, rather, can't be compelled or coerced into abiding any terms. In USING MY
work you have agreed to my terms. You have failed to meet the requirements of the Payment Clause as what you do in response to the terms
must align with the abstraction in my head. Additionally, the '1 = All' statute of the means that it doesn't matter who agreed to the terms, if ONE of you agrees to the terms, all of you agree to the terms. Including the US
government. So there
will be no asset seizure. You need to meet the requirements of the Payment and Credit portion in a way that aligns with my conception and failure to do so in a manner that is expedient violates the '
compliance clause.' Under the auspices of a compliance clause,
send an arbiter to
pay and credit me immediately."