If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim authority using the name of a fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, under a false name, creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. They enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law.

Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

With emphasis, this separation is how all corporations operate. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the conjoined and contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim authority using the name of a fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, under a false name, creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. They enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law.

Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

With emphasis, this separation is how all corporations operate. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the conjoined and contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim authority using the name of a fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, under a false name, creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. They enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law.

Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

With emphasis, this separation is how all corporations operate. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim authority using the name of a fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, under a false name, creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. They enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law.

Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so using the name of the fictional entity (the court, or government/municipal corporation attached to the court). This claim, using the name of a fictional entity creates an illusion of an enhanced strength beyond the capacity of the actual people making the claim of authority. The enhance this illusion using coercion and an exploitation of the created belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are attempts to determine if a fictional limit has been crossed (you can't cross actual limits). Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined contrived limitation of choice, through force, that threatens to enforce it (coercion).

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the joined constructed limitation of choice (coercion), through force, that threatens to enforce it.

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of law, and the intimately joined and constructed limitation of choice (coercion), through force, that attempts to enforce it.

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

Other than Natural Law, the law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t set limits, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or corporate entity (of any type) that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,” which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or chain of corporations that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, I'll get back to that).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,”which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefi t but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in diff erent persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or chain of corporations that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, as will be shown in later sections.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events.

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,”which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefi t but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in diff erent persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or chain of corporations that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.

If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously.

I wrote this up the day after your response, but I decided to put it on the shelf for a couple days. Below I make my case. If you still disagree, that doesn't mean I can't clarify things, or that a further case can't be made, but I believe it should be sufficient. I ask that you read it through to the end, because I make statements that you may protest that might be addressed in later parts. I can't show everything all at once.

All definitions are from BLD 6th edition except those quotes which are specifically noted as from the World Bank report.

LAW

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

There are then, two types of law. The Laws which “co-exist with phenomena” are called Natural Laws. Laws where the “phenomena follows the law” are all other laws, i.e. in all other laws, a phenomenon (effect) doesn’t happen until the law is created (cause). For Natural Law, it says, “you can’t do this” and you simply can’t do it (law and effect are intertwined AKA co-exist). Natural Law is a rule (a real, actual limit) on what you can do.

It continues:

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

All laws are “limits,” whether they be Natural or otherwise. They are all “prescribed by controlling authority.” In Natural Law that authority is the Universe (or Source, or God, or Nature, if you prefer). For all other laws the common belief is that the controlling authority is some corporate entity (government or State e.g.). This common belief is completely false, but I’ll get to that in the next section.

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.

The law doesn’t actually set limits, rather the law describes limits and they “must be obeyed… [or the citizens will be] subject to… legal consequences”. Every law but Natural Law doesn’t actually set any limits at all, rather, it sets consequences, AKA coercion.

Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.

Notice that it says the “supreme power of the State.” Again, I’ll get back to that.

...

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.

Laws are decided by a court because laws are not facts. A fact is a report of a Real event. All questions of laws which are decided by a court are just fictional limits. Thus courts decide questions of law, and judges or juries decide questions of fact (depending on the local judicial system). This is because only Natural Persons can decide questions of Real events (again, part of that thing I will get back to).

Court. … An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice.

A court is an “incorporeal political corporation,” i.e. a fictional entity. It can’t make decisions. It can’t have any “cause” to create an “effect,” It doesn’t exist. The PEOPLE who run the court can do those things, because they are Natural Persons. The Authority of the Court is “lawful,”which means its authority only exists in the scope of the fiction of law itself. In other words, the authority of the court is an illusion. The REAL PEOPLE in the court claim real authority, but they do so through coercion and belief in the fiction of law. Also, by “law” they specifically mean “law that isn’t Natural Law,” even though that is not explicitly stated. With respect to Natural Law a court has no authority. That authority rests solely with Nature itself.

Corporate Control

In a report titled The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About from the World Bank, 2011, they talk about how the various corporate entities (Foundations, Trusts, Companies, etc.) use the legal fiction of their incorporation to commit crimes. In an upcoming part of my report I analyze this a bit further, but I can pull out a few pieces relevant to this conversation (page 18):

The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own benefi t but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split into two constituent elements, which became vested in diff erent persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui que trust [that is, the beneficiary].

All corporate entities separate “ownership” into two pieces, “control” and “beneficiary,” not just Trusts. In regards to what is commonly thought of as a “corporation” (i.e. a for profit company):

Page 162:

All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (through a board of directors).

This separation is how all corporations operate, not just companies. In the case of a governmental corporation, the “control” is similarly in the board of directors. In our government this board is separated into three different branches, but it is still identical both legally and functionally to any other board of directors in any other legal entity (or board of trustees, Dictator, etc., i.e. the Natural Person(s) with legal control). The “beneficiaries” in our government are, at least ostensibly (and legally) We The People. That is what makes a government a “public corporation.” The control however rests in the board of directors (I’m using that as a blanket term). I’ll elaborate that in a second, but it is a very important thing to understand about how all corporations (AKA fictional entities) work.

The next important part addresses “company chains,” or any single corporation or chain of corporations that doesn’t have an obvious Natural Person(s) that have ultimate control of the assets of the corporation.

page 19:

Natural Person versus Legal Person

The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.

I can’t overstate how important this legal concept is in understanding the fuckery and the evidence. From the perspective of all law, the ultimate controller and beneficial owner, no matter how they are legally separated, nor how many corporations may be in a chain on either side, nor what you may have been taught in Government class, of EVERY SINGLE ASSET ON THE PLANET is always a Natural Person (not necessarily the same Natural Person for the two separate parts, but it might be), and never a Corporation (AKA legal fiction). It is never a government, it is never a State, it is never a Trust, or Foundation, or Company. It is always, always, always a Natural Person.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.

The reason the control and ownership always fall to a Natural Person is because a corporation (legal fiction) doesn’t actually exist. It can’t actually make decisions. It has no real form. It is a fiction and can’t do anything at all, because it isn’t a part of Reality. It only has meaning within Law (legal fiction) which is itself an illusion, unless it is Natural Law. It is because Natural Law is the only Real Law that the controller and beneficiary are always Natural Persons, because Real Law recognizes as Real only those entities that can actually make decisions (have “causal input into the universe”).

Sovereignty

Sovereignty. By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

Govern. To direct and control the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority.

Authority. Control over; jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. Areas of authority

Sovereignty then means, the incontestable (AKA unalienable) Right to control over a specific Jurisdiction, or if you prefer “Ultimate Control.” Understanding the Jurisdiction of this Ultimate Control for every Real Sovereign is essential to understanding their Sovereignty as well. Any Sovereign only has the Right to Ultimate Control within their Jurisdiction. Outside of it, they have no “Right to control” whatsoever. That doesn’t mean they can’t have effective control, but they have no right (unalienable Right) to do so. Each Natural Person always retains, by Natural Law, the unalienable Right to Ultimate Control over their own self, no matter what claims anyone makes. Specifically they always retain the Right to defend Life and Liberty, Right to pursue their own happiness, Right to make their own choices, Right to defend their property, etc. These Rights can never be taken away, but people can be made to believe that they have been, through the fiction of “law.”

Because a Sovereign has ultimate control, and control ALWAYS falls to a Natural Person, a corporation (government e.g.) can’t be a Sovereign. It is impossible. Instead a government that claims Sovereignty over the individual does so by creating a legal fiction. The Real people that hide behind the fictional authority lay a claim on the Individual’s Jurisdiction, saying that they have the Right to make choices for us, they have the Right to our property; that the law gives them that Right. But the law they use to make such jurisdictional claims isn’t a part of Natural Law, it isn’t a part of Reality, it is a fiction, thus the claim to their right to be our Sovereign is also a fiction.

They apply coercive force to demand compliance, but the decisions, the Ultimate Authority of choice over the Individual always resides in the Individual, because that is a Right that cannot be infringed; it is unalienable, even in theory. This unalienability is an actual Natural Law (limitation on what is possible) Thus, again, the claim is false. Because they know it is false, because they created the entire institution of its falseness (Law Magic) the claim is not just false, it is fraudulent.

That doesn’t mean that society can’t legitimately have “laws” without false claims on the Individuals Sovereign Jurisdiction as elaborated in my list of four required inclusions to the Constitution shown in a previous post. It is also essential that law only be enforced in spirit, rather than by letter. “Following the letter of the law” attempts to place the Ultimate Authority in the law itself, rather than in the Natural Persons who make the actual decisions, and is thus a false application of law, which means it is a Treaty violation; an act of war on the Sovereign Individual.