The Sovereign's Handbook
The
first essential is to understand sovereignty, and your sovereignty in
particular.
Here, in Appendix A, are some attempts at defining it …
many of them fatuous, because they assume 'bowing and scraping' to 'royalty' as
the key to sovereignty. This is a fatuous assumption, as can be seen by
answering this very Simple Questionnaire:
In
the UK, please complete the questions below to the best of your ability.
(Other
countries ... just read your Constitution. If it starts "We, the People ..."
then you are already home & dry)
1. Is HRH Queen
Elizabeth II sovereign?
Yes.
No (in which case do not bother to answer any
further questions because you obviously haven't a clue).
2. Where did the
Queen's sovereignty come from?
Her Coronation Oath.
The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
3. What was her
Coronation Oath?
A
binding and solemn Contract between herself and The People of the United
Kingdom.
A
load of pomp, circumstance, glitz, glitter, and irrelevant yada from a load of
schmucks ponsing about in silly clothes and silly hats.
4. How did she
obtain her sovereignty from that Contract?
It
was the Contractual Consideration offered by The People, in exchange for her
protection.
It
was the Contractual Consideration offered by The People, in exchange for her
protection.
5. Can you give
someone something you do not, yourself, possess?
No,
of course you can't.
No,
of course you bloody can't ... don't be stupid!
6. Do you
understand, therefore, that in order to give the Queen her sovereignty, it must
have come from The People (otherwise they could not offer it at the time of her
Coronation)?
Yes, that seems pretty obvious to me, now you mention it.
Errr ....
7. Do you understand,
therefore, that either ALL are sovereign OR NO-ONE is sovereign?
Yes
... if you put it like that.
Errr ... blubber ... blubber ...
8. Do you,
therefore, understand that, if the Queen is sovereign, THEN SO MUST YOU BE?
Yes
... that's VERY interesting!
Beam me up, Scottie!
9. Do you think it
would be a good idea to act like the sovereign you actually are?
Yes
... I think that would be an excellent idea!
I
got beamed up, so I don't have to answer this question.
Reverting
to the definitions available in Appendix A, obtained via Google, it largely
depends on what “a State” is, of course.
And
it is necessary to remember that ‘a State’ is ‘a thing’, and ‘a thing’ can be
‘anything’ … in any context anyone chooses. If this ‘thing’ is considered to be
a land mass, then it is nothing more than a lump of soil (dry land), until is
becomes inhabited by other ‘things’, called ‘people’. And it is only the
efforts of those ‘people’ that give this ‘lump of dry land’ any ‘worth’ or
‘value’, etc.
‘A
State’, therefore, can easily be taken to mean a Human Being (a Member of The
People).
The
last definition: The ultimate, supreme power in a state (e.g. in the United
States, sovereignty rests with the people) is getting close to the nub
because (as can be gained from the Questionnaire above) no-one is sovereign
unless ALL are sovereign.
And
the reason is simple: You are you. A Human Being, flesh & blood, with a
living soul. And your body and soul are yours … and yours alone. You ARE the
‘state’. (They even talk about people having ’an estate’ comprising finance and
property, etc.).
The
Sovereign Republic of Eire was founded in precisely this manner between 1916
and 1919, and makes absolutely no bones about it. The sovereignty, the
independence, of each Irishman & Irishwoman is overtly expressed and
guaranteed by their Constitution.
Fundamentally
it all comes down to ‘mindset’. (That's the mentally part of the word fundamentally,
of course).
The
correct mindset is to put yourself either above, or on a par with, everyone
else, no matter who they are, or who/what they purport to be.
Those
whom you put yourself above, are those who claim to be Public Servants. The
reason is simple: They are SERVANTS and you are ‘a Member of the Public’ … thus
you are MASTER. Anything else is ‘tail wagging the dog’.
Those
you put yourself on a par with are those who claim to be ‘Members of the
Public’ (and nothing else). You are no better than them, you are no worse then
them. You are their equal.
When
you act, as a Sovereign, you act with responsibility at all
times. And that keeps the balances in check.
As
a Sovereign it is important to remember that it is your will
(your free will) that counts. And your wishes.
A
Sovereign never ‘commands’. A Sovereign always expresses “a wish”.
And a Subject (e.g. ‘slave’ or SERVANT) will say: “Your wish is my command”.
That's where it all comes from.
Thus
a Sovereign writes: “It is my wish that such and such ...” or: “My
will is such and such ...”
Then
it is up to whomsoever reads the “wish” to decide whether or not they are a
‘servant’, or another ‘sovereign’. If they decide they are another sovereign,
then they can't claim to be a Public SERVANT. If they decide they are a Public
Servant, then the Sovereign’s wish is their command. This prevents the tail ever being able to
wag the dog.
If
you choose to exercise your sovereignty then there are a few things you must
realise:
1.
It
is possible for you to converse with other sovereigns in order to straighten
out ideas and approaches, but you must never ask: “Can we do that?”. If
you have to ask that question, then your mindset is entirely wrong. There's
nothing wrong with the questions: “How do we do that? What's the best way
you have found? Does anyone know an easier, more precise, way?”, and so on.
2.
You
must thoroughly understand what you are doing. You must be prepared for
‘blowback’ on the basis that the idea of only certain people (Heads of State,
etc.) being sovereign is very thoroughly and universally ingrained. It is going
to take a lot to shift the general psychic blockages.
3.
Public
Servants of note, such as Magistrates, Sheriffs, Judges, Policemen, Bailiffs,
Solicitors, etc. have generally taken an Oath to “Uphold the Law, so help me
God”. If they had not specifically made that swearing, then they are all anyway
bound under the Head of State's Oath at the time of the Coronation or
Inauguration, etc. And that Oath is ALWAYS “Under God, so help me God!”. It is,
therefore, always possible to tie them back to this Oath. But this has to be
done in a very careful and controlled manner, which leaves them absolutely no
wriggle-room whatsoever. Very simply because, if you give them an inch, they
will take a mile. They want to be what they claim to be … and they have to take
an Oath to get there … but once they are ‘there’ … they want to forget all
about that crucial Oath … because it very seriously inhibits the power-trip
they are on.
‘Getting
into the right mindset’ simply cannot be over-stressed. Simply
learning parrot-fashion (as you were taught at school) is not
going to succeed. The people you will be dealing with did not get to where they
were by being stupid. They got there because they are extremely
cunning, and have quite probably honed their positions over many years.
Simplest
is best. Say the least possible, but make what you do say count.
Here are some possible scenarios.
Stopped by the Police.
Even
if you did what you are accused of, it is still better to say nothing at all …
however persuasive the arguments put to you.
“What
is your name?”
“If
I give you that information, how do you propose to use it? What will you do
with it?”
Here,
of course, he or she will use it to shaft you, and he or she will know that –
but dare not admit it outright. So the probable answer will attempt to turn the
screw by telling you that: “You can be held for so and so days if you don’t
give your name”.
In
which case you can respond: “If you can do that WITHOUT knowing my name,
heaven alone knows what you could do WITH knowing my name”.
Then
there is:
“Who
are you?”
“Who’s
asking?”
“I’m
a policeman, and I’m asking you your name”
… and we are back to the original scenario.
If,
eventually, arrested and charged, as you are likely to be – even though you are
more than likely to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing - do not say
anything at all. Under any circumstances. Otherwise you will undoubtedly ‘hang’
yourself. If told you need to make a Statement, say:
“Have
you arrested me … yes or no?”
“Yes,
but …”
“Have
you cautioned me … yes or no?”
“Yes,
but …”
“Have
you charged me … yes or no?”
“Yes,
but …”
“In
that case you have done everything you can, and I’ll say everything necessary
to the Judge.
I don’t intend to enter into any pre-Trial Trial with you, because you are
not a qualified Judge”.
As
an alternative it is possible to put a policeman back on his or her
Oath – just like all other so-called ‘officials’. In which case his or her job
would be to serve and protect you. However their imagination,
depth of knowledge, and comprehension, is so limited and otherwise ingrained
that they are unlikely to understand the meaning of what you say.
The
approaches above are therefore more practical. This applies to the unskilled,
such as Bailiffs and Magistrates.
In Court, where there is a skilled “Legal Adjudicator”.
Once
you get to the stage of a Magistrates Court, run by a Clerk to the Justices
(the Clerk of the Court), or in front of a Sheriff or a Judge, then ‘holding
them to their Oath’ is the correct approach.
This
is done by saying (or writing): “I accept and acknowledge your Oath of
office on that date, and I am holding you to that office, for now we have a
binding contract.”
Whoever
you say this to must now protect you … or
not be what they claim to be.
To
test you, they may very well say: “What Oath?”
The
answer is: “Under God, so help me God. THAT Oath. The one that made you
what you claim to be”.
To
test you further, they may very well say: “And how am I supposed to protect
you?”
The
answer is:
“As an English (or Welsh or Scottish or Northern Irish)
Sovereign, without the State of England (or Wales or Scotland or Northern
Ireland) I appointed you to your office in these affairs to protect me from
the criminal conversion of the civil statutes of the State of England (or
Wales, or Scotland or Northern Ireland), for failure to state a claim on
which relief can be granted.”
The
“criminal conversion of civil statutes” should be readily
comprehensible to readers of the Freeman-on-the-Land Principles. It means by
applying the rules of ‘commerce’ (i.e. applying ‘legal’ … the Law of the Sea)
to a Human Being Land-dweller.
The
“failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted” is
saying that – since “money” is nothing but a legal fiction, no relief is
possible (in the real world) to any claim being made upon the
BODY & SOUL of you, yourself … as a Sovereign Human Being.
Under no circumstances whatsoever should this be embellished.
Embellishment will render these statements worthless, because the Judge will
realise that you do not fully understand what you have said.
The
important thing, in all circumstances, is to remember – and impress upon them –
that they have a choice: Are they a Public Servant … or not? Stick to this like
a dog with a bone: “Are you a Public Servant – or are you just another
Member of the Public (like me)?”. When they say: “Policeman”, “Bailiff”,
“Magistrate”, “Judge” (etc) ,you can say: “Public Servant then. Sworn on
Oath to ‘serve & protect’. And I’m a Member of the Public, so I’m a Master,
and I out-rank you because you work for me. My wishes are your commands. I hope
we now have the ranking clear. If not, then we can continue to discuss it.
Maybe you would rather not be a Public Servant, but a Member of the
Public – and thus a Master - equal to myself in all respects? In that case you
have no authority over me whatsoever, any more than I would have over you. This
is all entirely your own choice. However as my Servant or as an equal Master,
in neither case do you have any authority over me, exept if I decide to grant
it to you. And I would only do that if I trusted you. And, quite frankly, I
don’t trust you one iota”.
Getting the correct Mindset.
Here
we go again!
But
it just cannot be over-stressed, because Mindset is everything.
Anyone
who has taken a Oath (Policeman, Bailiff, Sheriff (yes … there are still some
left!), Magistrate, Judge, etc) had the choice as to whether to take it or not.
In order for them to become what they purport to be, they had to take an Oath.
It
is only that Oath that distinguishes them from “Joe Soap”.
But,
if someone has taken an Oath, then they cannot – or should not – be paid
for any actions they take under their Oath. There is no point is
swearing that you will do something, and then expecting to be paid for doing
it. Is there?
In
one of their Courts, they expect you to take an Oath to: “Tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. And they don’t offer you
payment for doing so, do they?
Of
course not! The whole point about an Oath is that ‘you are bound by your word’ (as
a Sovereign, of course … but they don’t tell you that!)
In
the case, for example, of policemen/women, they take an Oath to ‘uphold the
law’. They don’t do very much of that in practice (as we know), but – when they
do – they are not paid to do it. Because they have sworn to
do it.
So
– why are policeman & women paid? Well, the answer is obvious. They have
NOT sworn to ‘enforce policy’, only to ‘uphold the law’ – consequently when
they ‘enforce policy’ (as they normally do), that’s what they are being
paid for!
And,
of course, the ‘money’ they collect by means of their ‘policy enforcement’
activities is what, could be considered to, pay their wages.
Understanding
this, is all a part of the Mindset.
Epilogue.
Your
sovereignty is there to be claimed. The necessary arguments were given right at
the very start of this Handbook.
It
is there to be claimed, if you want it.
But
you cannot play-act. You cannot claim to be a Sovereign if you cannot cope with
every possible situation. If you don’t understand what it means to be a
Sovereign, then how can you possibly expect anyone else – who you may encounter
along the way - to understand?
It
is not easy. It is not the easy path. It never was
(the Irish found that out). The world and his wife will not understand – or
even have a clue - at least initially.
You
run considerable physical risks. The question that needs to be
answered is: “If being sovereign causes me physical pain one day, do I
buckle mentally, or will it strengthen my resolve?”
Only
by answering that question, as the Irish did in 1916, will you know whether or
not you wish to claim your sovereignty.
On the other hand, if we don’t all claim our sovereignty now … will we
ever?
Appendix A: Definitions of sovereignty on the Web:
· government free from external control
· reign: royal authority; the dominion of a monarch
· the authority of
a state to govern another state
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
· Sovereignty is
the exclusive right to exercise, within a specific territory, the functions of
a Nation-state and be answerable to no higher ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
· The state of
making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations;
Supreme authority over all things. (Ref. ‘King of kings, and Lord of lords’);
The liberty to decide one's thoughts and actions
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sovereignty
· sovereign - autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state"
· sovereign - a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right
· sovereign -
greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
· Sovereign - 3344
Peachtree is a 50 story high-rise building of 635 feet (193.5 m) height
currently under construction in Atlanta's northern-most neighborhood ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_(Atlanta)
· Sovereign,
published in 2006, is a crime novel by British author C. J. Sansom. It is
Sansom's fourth novel, and the third in the Shardlake series. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_(Sansom_novel)
· A Gold Sovereign
is a gold coin first issued in 1489 for Henry VII of England and still in
production as of 2009. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_(British_coin)
· Sovereign was a
Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy (MMORTS) game developed by Sony
Online Entertainment and cancelled in 2003. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_(game)
· sovereign - A
monarch; the ruler of a country; One who is not a subject to a ruler or nation;
A gold coin minted by the United Kingdom; A very large champagne bottle with
the capacity of about 25 liters, equivalent to 33⅓ standard bottles;
Exercising power of rule; Exceptional in quality; Having supreme ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sovereign
· The principle
that the state exercises absolute power over its territory, system of
government, and population. ...
martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm
· The ultimate,
supreme power in a state (eg, in the United States, sovereignty rests with the
people).
instech.tusd.k12.az.us/Core/glossary/ssglossary.doc