1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true. I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here. If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be Civil Law.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be Civil Law.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.

A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.

A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

1/2

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by the Authority of That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to an entity, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by all individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

I define all rights like this:

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to the person, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by all individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

First, please reread my last response (especially the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.

Black's Law Dictionary defines right thusly:

right: a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person

right: a power, privilege, etc. which is intrinsic to the person, granted by some authority

God Given Right: a power, faculty,.etc. granted by That Which Is

Civil Right: a power, faculty, etc. granted by a Social Contract

For War, BLD says:

A contest by force between two or more nations, carried on for any purpose, or armed conflict of sovereign powers or declared and open hostilities

I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):

war: an infringement of a Sovereign's Rights.

All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).

Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature.

This is not true (I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here). If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.

The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.

If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.

This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.

That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.

That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.

Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.

See definition above.

This is why the Middle East is so fucked up.

The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.

"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.

Once you understand the definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.

This is not what is happening.

Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.

Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.

The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.

I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all wrong. They are all misunderstandings of what “Right” means.

The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists.

Many people think “the Universe” is something physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less.

All of the following words have identical meaning:

Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.

As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:

own: to have, to possess.

It can also mean:

own: to have a legal or rightful title to

These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.

The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.

We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand, i.e. possess).

These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).

We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.

The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.

I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.

I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be something else.

The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.

The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).

anarchy: without ruler

We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.

EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.

ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.

They entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.

YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow.

It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.

According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.

Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement is misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Why?

Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).

Sovereign Citizens Some would call that term an oxymoron.

A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract. A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority. A person’s jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).

A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen).

There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.

Wanna bet?

ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority.”

Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by all individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

A Constitution is a Social Con