Ok, hear me out ...... let's start off with 2 datums .... 1. We are watching a movie and 2. Trump is currently the "real" president acting as such.
So, if we are watching a movie and all the important actors are playing their parts well under control, why would any plan depend upon the variability of an election at this point? Why depend upon a single individual staying healthy etc. (i.e. Trump). It would seem if we are watching a movie then all important variables can be accounted for a coped with if it falls "wrong", an actor/controlled asset replaced etc. Also if the next election is vital, wouldn't Q be communicating to us to assist as such? Q has gone dark because we did most all thats needed of us until the normies awaken.
Secondly if Trump is actually doing his 2nd term, he does not get 3 per the rules (assuming we playing fair in that case).
If we are watching a movie, then we can assume most all individuals with power to affect real outcomes are under control (maybe the blackmail material is in white hats hands and they do what they are told like how RICO is run). It seems like Trumps first term was to put various last steps in place Space force, various EO's etc. and now he may only have a small part to play in the final stretch. Q did say they have plans "beyond Trump".
If we are "watching a movie", all vital variables must be under control at a probably impressive scale.
First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.
From BLD:
Also:
There is your "succinct" answer.
There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."
Not so succinct:
The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.
They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.
Aside
Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:
I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:
I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written while actually trying to understand it and not have realized that.
You also keep saying things like:
From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.
Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.
Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.
The correct answer is:
Now I will give you a succinct answer to my own question:
If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously. Your current argument does not hold water because there is no definition in BLD that contains Sovereign that applies to Natural Persons - the way Founders intended America to be.
John Locke, an English philosopher, argued that individuals possess natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He believed that government's role is to protect these rights, and individuals have the right to rebel against oppressive governments. Others such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories that further emphasised natural rights and individual autonomy.
This is the core of the idea. Does not need any terminology or legal definitions because:
Its self evident
It had never been put into practice for it to have a legal definition or to have a point of law.
Declaration of independance is frequently portrayed as "an inspirational document with little legal value" - by the very Matrix we are trying to break free.
Please read the next line with out judgement.
Look at the founding documents without any preconceived legal notions. Understand each for exactly what is written in them, and nothing else
(This is exactly what I tell doctors and scientists regarding vaccine. I tell them to read the Pfizer clinical trial without any preconcieved notions and read exactly what is written in them and judge it for themselves.
The reason is that every person has a huge blind spot when it comes to their own profession, since our indoctrination in our own field is much stronger, and we are also part of the Matrix in that area.)
Declaration of Independence was not meant to be interpreted by some lawyers. It was a novel philosophical idea and it was meant to be understood by ANYONE - whether they have legal background, or political background or philosophical background or just ordinary citizens.
All other laws derives from this. The only reason Common Law/Natural Law is relevant in US judicial system is because the Declaration states that the people are exerting their rights under Natural Law.
The word "unalienable rights" it the real crux for the founding of US. It creates a powerful framework that would not have been possible if you relied on "points of law" as you put it.
If they put in the word "Sovereign" or "Individual Sovereignty", the entire foundation would have crumbled from the beginning since it would have given the judges all kinds of interpretation, but thankfully the Founders were smart.
I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.
All definitions are from Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.
LAW
There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.
It continues:
All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.
Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.
Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.
Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).
A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim authority using the name of a fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, under a false name, creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. They enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law.
Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.
Corporate Control
In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):
All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):
Page 162:
With emphasis, this separation is how all corporations operate. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.
The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.
page 19:
I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.
The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).
Sovereignty
Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the conjoined and contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).
Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.
They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.
That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.
I was starting to wonder where you disappeared. Let me go through all this and give you my response.