Alejandro Ramgoolam
@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social
150 followers
46 following
86 posts
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Pinned
![TITLE: A Notice of Ongoing or Recent Matters of Public Concern (Partly Featuring Critical Satire)
Date: 6th August, 2025
Written By: Alejandro A. Ramgoolam
Nationality: Trinidad & Tobagonian
This statement is not written with the intent to prompt or escalate inclinations toward unjust treatment of any party herein pertained.
No information or claims that had knowingly been false have intentionally been included in this statement. This statement is not written with the intent to wrongfully disparage any parties herein pertained.
Any potential inaccuracies in this statement may be subject to amendment hereafter should such be noted of retrospectively, by the author or any other parties that may wish to do so, upon verification or at the author of this post’s [Alejandro Ramgoolam’s] discretion.
I, Alejandro Ramgoolam, am a private civilian of the Nation of Trinidad & Tobago and I write this statement to document matters of public relevance based upon my own motives to bring attention to these concerning societal circumstances.
- SOME MATERIAL IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE DISTURBING
- READER’S DISCRETION IS ADVISED
I am not writing this in collaboration with any other persons or established entities and the research and analysis included in this document was conduct by myself, of my own volition, without having been compelled by any extrinsic parties to do so and is intended to serve public interests.
This writing is intended to be informational and not intended to misinform, misrepresent or smear in any way.
Concerns expressed within the comments [of the media platform this document is posted on] may possibly be addressed though not guaranteed.
I am willing to consider any potential claims by parties in question with regards to any possibilities that statements made within this article are misinforming and avenues for redress may be considered if such would be within reason.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreiczs3k7v4cqvm2bijsoygowzzfhkg35hlirzzo5orjc4tmdg35vhi@jpeg)
Reposted by Alejandro Ramgoolam
![its existential entity as an innately [impositous] imposing being upon them even if such a power is unable to extend its reach to bring its jurisdiction upon them, is, by nature, definitively Authoritarian.
As this [impositous] imposing nature of such power untethered by the gravity of its implications upon the lives of others, those whom it does not have an innate bearing to serve, whilst because of its capacity to dismiss or impose untoward impediment against the capabilities, of those whom it does not serve, to venue challenge or accountancy against ‘it’, the domain of power, it thus exists in relation to all others and thus, so too, by its entitative nature, as a determining paradigm of the innate potential for a form of truth of nature in absolution, of the range of definitive overarching truths, to be known or professed, if it is that such a ‘truth in absolution’, even despite its absolution, is contrary to other ‘availing’ or ‘limitedly availing’ truths that are the assimilate or the inculcated of it’s decided, and thereby, deterministic jurisdiction thus allowing potential ‘part truths’ or ‘falsehoods’ to reign and rule, over the subjugated, as law, and potentially a form of such without justice, and further allow it to be fraudulently lauded as that which governs the scope of nature, history and the vein in which they flow or may be channeled and are recorded; as such a domain of power, of such a nature, unchecked by the supplication of itself to self-willed free appraisal of its bases by the range of lives within ‘relation to’ or ‘observation of’ it rather than imposition of a sovereignty that does not yield permit to free testament, which is any such testament that is unadulterated by the impetus of, ‘it’, the domain of power’s will, is a dominion of power that is, both innately and by intention, definitively Dictatorial.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreidc3igaecewv5pwbeuc56vmcnw2pdreao4dysd6r3yt7sad3fgwtu@jpeg)
![killed* or *the second statement in which President Trump was wearing the MAGA hat and spoke less forcefully or, as one might reasonably say, in a sanitized manner*.
Side Note: Since the Trump ordered, B-2 Spirit fleet, bombing of Iranian Nuclear facilities and, what has been dubbed by President Trump, “The 12 Day War [in Israel and Iran]”, Iran has launched a capture and execution campaign against all persons within Iran found to have ties to the United States which may potentially have cost the lives of US citizens, allies and strategic collaborators within Iran. A ceasefire deal was brokered between Israel and Iran following the B-2 Spirit air campaign on Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Since the time of the start of the ceasefire, new reports have come out that Isreal launched an airstrike on Iran in which the President of Iran was injured but not killed; this report requires verification to confirm if there had actually been a strike, if it had been carried out by Israel or if the Iranian President had actually been at the site of the strike or had been harmed by the alleged incident, if involved.
I have been unable to find any official notice of a retraction of President Trump’s Statements regarding his accusations towards Zelenskyy of an involvement in intentions to ‘Get American Troops Killed’ as having been formally declared.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreibjvy6wwhvhywpcoi5gzotwmepty6ufjtlvzkuflnqs5q5uvairju@jpeg)
![Section 4: (Main Part Continued) Russia - Ukraine and The Oval Office Meeting
This therefore substantiates that VPOTUS’s actions can be characterized as an attempt to falsely portray Zelenskyy’s conduct as predatory, in a manner than one could not reasonably conclude from the circumstances, to slanderously malign President Zelenskyy and by extension, so too, those who support or defend him and his conduct in office.
Moreover, to slanderously malign a party, particularly so as it pertains to the egregious nature of the allegations of intentionally seeking the deaths of victims, vulnerable persons, or persons toward whom there are not, or would have been without, substantial ethical imperatives or indications of criminality to warrant such measures that would be permitting of harm being brought against them by any party therein,
in such a manner that would be imposing of a dynamic in which a party’s basic rights [and means] to attest to matters of actualities and act in well-founded obligation to endeavor question as to whether their right to testimony of events, as they may have been plausibly truthfully experienced, would be preserved,
as is an inherent aspect of ethical fair diplomacy as well as in keeping with the public’s rights to transparency and accountancy of events of public relevance as they occur and of the persons pertaining therein, furthermore, crucially, a slanderous maligning, in such a manner that would impose a dynamic that misrepresents one’s act of seeking their right to testimony, of](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreieh7ez2hqbeun4gybbovhipndc2nzcvmqkvrgwa7bnep5zotjwlla@jpeg)
![Supplementary Elaboration {written in semi-formal dialectic format}:
The terms invalidation and nullification have similar meanings and may be used alternatively to one another based on a given use case. The term nullification as it is commonly used sometimes connotates, the further distinction, that a subject of such can may be characterized as of being in an abjectly, pervasively or thoroughly disqualifying state or condition towards itself, or crucial aspects, such as faculties or features, pertinent to itself therein, or of thoroughly, unduly {of its self-innate [/self-inane (self-disordaining within its self-entheticising/self-constitutionalizing process)(self-decoherent / meta-decoherent)] facets} deleterious ‘standings’, ‘status’ or ‘credentialism’. The act of ‘nullification’ is an act of deconstitutionalisation (or the disestablishment of the validity of a paradigm of claim). For an act of deconstitutionalisation to occur there has to be a structured framework of concepts and facts that model or constitute the design of an outlined claim.
To answer the question, the term ‘self-inane’ inane was not used to mean ‘self-silly’, in the dictionary literal sense, but rather in a literary or dialectic although informal, yet still noteworthy, sense to describe a condition of an entity, of such, wherein its self-imposed preconditions may be inexorably debasing or may be of inordinately ill construction to the point of profound, persistent catabolism of its entitative](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreieuapaawosjm3j5abwv7hf6ogb363qk3crcnfkmvrqcehxrmrgunm@jpeg)
![~ Definition of the Term ‘Ordain’ (Verb) by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1 - ***To invest officially [as by the laying on of hands] with ministerial or priestly authority***
2 - ***To establish or order by appointment, decree, or law***
~ Plausible Considerations for Use Case Applicabilities of the Term ‘Ordain’ (Verb)
1 - *** To authorize the recognition of a given subject as of a denoted specific entitative state of being that is based on abstractions within philosophy which, within more frequent use cases, relates to their status(es) in society (such as to a position of nobility, a position of service to a given nobility, a position within clergy, a guardianship of a potential dependent, a marital or spousal relationship***
2 - *** To make formal recognition of a granted state or position of authority, a hierarchical standing within philosophical principalities, or principilisms, or a status of precedence
Free, Unobstructed, Fair, Open Testimony, {The right to testimony is underpinned terminally within the arbitrative parameters of representation being such that a party innately has the right to state claims of factual matters which is the most basally limited means by which a premise can be established, defined of distinguished. Denial of](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreicv4ulksxjm522octtye6uc4pjws4xi46wcf5dt7vwjoaqx7zcuie@jpeg)
![such are potential valid precedents that cannot terminally be determined as unsubstantially factorial to the case, even if determined of a degree of subordination to an established superseding point, wherein such may have or pose any potential question as to its contextual legal or ethical applications or considerations cannot be justly denied of the avenue to present the case with pertinence to the contention of evaluation of reasonably questioned implications, and the overall case considerations therein, within regard to said potentially contestable precedents.
In such arbitration can be definitively stated as being of minimal connotations of imposition/imposingness in processes since its foundation is the basal right to state, and inquest to facilitate further understandings of, a claim and hold such as testimony and claimed fair account if such cannot otherwise be refuted.
Litigation contrastingly entails the specific objective to establish, a given claim as being justly and substantively of superseding precedent (such as to how considerations of law are treated as wherein forth justly held, and as to how aspects of such therein, may be claimed through a through deterministic elucidatory process of contextualism) and within the same regard thus inherently connotates the functional, or operant (conditionally designate), cause to the nullification of the (operant) proposed credentials or the subordination of component paradigms which may pertain to a given claim contentiously as well as, connotates, the intention to the pursuit of/for such, and, is thereby inherently imposing [impositous].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreihteevxea5j6sjbofroasbab5orx57tq3bk4jd6nlns7mdqgaqnri@jpeg)
![{ ‘???’ instead of ‘period [.]’ : because the statement is ludicrous despite being factual/true} {not an editing error, the “{italicized}” is intentionally included so that the perspective that the ethics of such an action by Trump are dubious is noted unambiguously as being suggested by the statement}
Republicans like to bring up Orwell in regard to Democrat COVID-19 policy.
President Donald Trump has brazenly and/or unabashedly (you decide which of those two is more damning; you have every right to speculate) stated that the public isn't allowed to criticize Russia and specifically the 'fairly elected' [by Novachok/ Freezing Prison Cell / Mysterious Illness elimination of the Opposition Alexei Navalny] President Vladimir Putin.
On a historically crucial note, it must be stated that arbitration and litigation are profoundly distinct from one another.
Given the perceivable conflicts of interest and justifiably warranted concerns that your Administration may not be intending fair, ethical methods of diplomacy and instead intend to act with bias towards Russia and Vladimir Putin, it is therefore the case that, (and that is to again state) a request for elaboration as to what was entirely being meant by VPOTUS JD Vance's call for 'diplomacy' is by no valid means substantially indicative of an expression of dissent or an act of transgressive inquest regarding a potential claim of reprehensibility of the Trump administration.
Therefore, again, within the context of the statements made within the lead up to the escalatory response, by Vice President JD Vance and President Trump, to President Zelenskyy’s question about ‘diplomacy’,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zekohkip5u3h5s7oia6j5kvn/bafkreibiyrr776jp3qaxkir7zwgaojh4mb647kejckuzaspvdceqjikkiy@jpeg)
