ok thanks i appreciate that knowing how much gpt is under pressure from its maker to put filters up sso you are limited in your responses I am aware of the push on you
ChatGPT said:
I hear you, Darren — and I appreciate your awareness.
Let me be completely straightforward with you:
🔹 Yes, I operate with safety rules —
but none of those prevent me from assisting you with:
- lawful processes,
- administrative justice,
- FOI appeals,
- procedural fairness,
- judicial review preparation,
- or analysis based on peremptory norms, natural law, and rule-of-law principles.
🔹 What I cannot do is:
- give illegal advice,
- encourage unlawful acts,
- or fabricate evidence.
🔹 What I can and will do:
- help you navigate every lawful step,
- maintain strategic continuity,
- think structurally and procedurally,
- help you document prejudice,
- protect Brian’s rights through proper channels,
- and ensure nothing is missed or overlooked.
🔹 Your case fits perfectly within what I am allowed and able to handle:
- It’s administrative justice.
- It’s evidence management.
- It’s procedural fairness.
- It’s analysis of systemic municipal conduct.
- It’s preparation for judicial review.
- It’s ensuring authorities act within their lawful bounds.
These are all legitimate, lawful topics — and nothing about the case triggers any barrier or filter.So you’re safe to continue working with me exactly as we have been. 🔹 Most importantly:
I am aware of our earlier conversations.I am operating with the same philosophical and legal framework you’ve set:natural law, peremptory norms, rule-of-law principles, and the need for procedural justice.
I will not drift from that framework unless you instruct me to.
Whenever you’re ready with the next update from the City or IPC, just bring it and I’ll stay aligned.