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?


         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.



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

· Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise, within a specific territory, the functions of a Nation-state and be answerable to no higher ...

· 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

· 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"

· 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 ...

· 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. ...

· A Gold Sovereign is a gold coin first issued in 1489 for Henry VII of England and still in production as of 2009. ...

· Sovereign was a Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy (MMORTS) game developed by Sony Online Entertainment and cancelled in 2003. ...

· 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 ...

· The principle that the state exercises absolute power over its territory, system of government, and population. ...

· The ultimate, supreme power in a state (eg, in the United States, sovereignty rests with the people).