Narendra Nirmal Jana

Email: narenjana@narenjana.com

Email: narenj5@protonmail.com

December 3rd 2020 Asylum Interview:

Home Office Reference #: J1989785

Application ASC #: ASC/5271126

Defining what an explicit and implicitly statement are:

Explicit statement:

1a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity: leaving no question as to meaning or intent explicit instructions.

Implicit statement (or an inferential statement):

The definition of implicit is, "implied or understood though not plainly or directly expressed." Something is, therefore, implicit when it is not directly stated but is either suggested in the wording or necessary to effectuate the purpose. For example, "There is a morality implicit in his writings".

Its important to define what an explicit and implicit statement is because this case is based on a combination of explicit and implicit statements.

The US is never going to explicitly state "we are trying to physically harm you to mutilate and disfigure you while limiting litigation and law outlets to stop it" because its incriminating to the US. But they will state it implicitly and that repeated implicit statement becomes an explicit statement.

It goes from implicit to what eventually becomes an explicit statement.

If a single lawyer denied representation in the US its not enough of a implicit statement. If 10 lawyers denied representation in a state in the US then it becomes a implicit statement (lack of legal representation). If 25 or more lawyers deny representation in a state then it becomes an explicit statement (lack of legal representation in that state).

If a doctor denies medical treatments once or twice that's not enough of an implicit statement. If doctors in a state deny medical treatment 10 times then that's an implicit statement. If a doctor denies medical treatment more than 20 times it's an explicit statement.

If you combine the two above explicit statements then you get the statement "denial of medical treatment with the object intellectual and physical disfigurment while limiting legal representation to stop it in a particular state as the policy of the state". Its now an explicit statement when it started as an implicit statement.

If this situation replicates over 2 states then it becomes an implicit statement. If it replicates over 3 or 4 state then it becomes an explicit statement.

This is also an explicit statement by the US, its explicit because it's:

1) Advertised to me specifically when im gathering medical data in the US and it makes sense in context.

2) It fits the situation at that point in time after the situation took place with repeated example thus explicit.

(Explained later in this document) this is also an explicit statement by the US because it fits the context of the situation in the country at that point in time, it was already defined as the policy of the country to deny medical treatment in a large time span.

Its aldready been shown thats its the policy of government and law to mistreat me.

You could easy determine withing that US the combined effect of medical, internet, social, and public malice combined with legal restriction in my case makes it a "lawless" country.

(Explained later) this is an explicit statement by the US, threatening "blood" by following me around with a van that states "blood" for miles on end in the US if I receive medical treatment in a foreign nation. The US does this often.

It fits the context of the situation at that point in time.

If its not a public statement of lawlessness its a public threat by a doctor that lead the malice:

Dr. Evan Murray led the medical falsifications in the US and abroad to intellectually and physically disfigure me. As given in this section as the first posting onward:

Medical Doctors Causing Harm is Clinical Settings Section

(Explained later) these two are also explicit statements when the US directed these people to make these statements at that point in time. Why? Because its specifically advertised to me in a situation that fits that particular context.