Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (written words in the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring this legal entity (as opposed to an actual entity) before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entity's "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" was a nation (corporate entity) had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction ("never changing" requires some elaboration, because that doesn't mean our property never changes, but our inalienable Rights never do). That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (written words in the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring this legal entity (as opposed to an actual entity) before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entity's "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction ("never changing" requires some elaboration, because that doesn't mean our property never changes, but our inalienable Rights never do). That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring this legal entity (as opposed to an actual entity) before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entity's "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction ("never changing" requires some elaboration, because that doesn't mean our property never changes, but our inalienable Rights never do). That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring this legal entity (as opposed to an actual entity) before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction ("never changing" requires some elaboration, because that doesn't mean our property never changes, but our inalienable Rights never do). That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring this legal entity (as opposed to an actual entity) before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction. That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, or build a house, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction. That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction. That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law; the only real law (limits) that exists.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

When a new nation is formed (declared corporeal) other entities may not agree. The people who claimed "USA" had to go to war to get Britain to agree that they had the "right" to claim corporealness. With actual people no such war is required. They are born with their Authority, with a built in, never changing Jurisdiction. That is because a persons Authority is declared by Natural Law (the only real law (limits) that exists).

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. This entities "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. What is often not appreciated is that its "corporealness" only has any validity within the self-stated Jurisdiction of the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. We can bring it before a court and "sue" it in lieu of the actual individuals who run it. It acts as a legal shield between the actions of the individual, and the consequences of their actions. What is often not appreciated is that its "corporealness" only has any validity within the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.

Each individual lays claim to "their property" (I don't just mean "land," or "dwelling"). If someone disagrees with that claim, then they declare war. These things are easy to understand when you look at how what we call "Sovereign Nations" act. The misunderstanding is in the misplacement of Sovereignty, not in the actions of a Sovereign.

Such "claims" to property is how things have always been done, regardless of the form of "government" (i.e. who has the "right" to make the claim). For example, If I make a fishing pole, I make the claim that it is my property. If I work some land, it's my property. A "town" is just a bunch of individuals, with their individual claims to their own property, getting together and saying "we are a town." Within that claim is the creation of a Treaty. Whether that treaty is formally written down, or informally understood is not really relevant to the idea. However, I prefer the latter because it is harder to fuck with. An informal treaty relies solely on the appreciation of the Individual's Sovereignty, and has less opportunity to shift responsibility onto the "law" (in this case the treaty).

Again, just look at how it is done with what we currently call "Sovereigns."

The fuckery isn't in how Sovereigns act, but in our misunderstanding of what that word means and how we apply it. We have been taught to believe that Ultimate Authority (Sovereignty) belongs to a "corporation," (legal fiction). A "corporation" is, by definition, any entity given the pretense of corporeal form through the process of law. What is often not appreciated is that its "corporealness" only has any validity within the formal system of laws under which it is defined.

We create Nations (or rather, the Cabal creates Nations), which is just another form of corporation, under these false beliefs of "law" and "corporealness within the law." The entire fraud lies within these misunderstandings of law and its application. The people who run the corporation then, lay claim on the Individuals Jurisdiction under the authority of the corporation, which doesn't actually exist. It is because of it's non-existence that is must be enforced through coercion and not with mutual agreement and respect.