Individual sovereignty, re: road travel

[petrus4]

We love you Amy, but that logic falls in line with TAP - great idea - not applicable ATM - operating a motor vehicle while traveling is driving and requires a license.

When I had my last 'discussion' with one of Mountain City's finest regarding the subject, I did not pass go (had to be arrested because IT'S THE LAW)

Asking a cop about the law is roughly equivalent to asking a GP about nutrition.  They know just enough to cause them to think that they're an authority on the subject; when said amount of knowledge is actually microscopic.

Police are, in fact, the absolute worst people to talk to, about sovereignty as a legal concept.  The main reason being, that since 9/11 in particular, the attitude of most cops is that as a civilian, you really have no rights whatsoever.  In their minds, they tell you what to do, and you do it...or else.  If you watch examples of sovereigns on YouTube, they will generally wait until they get to a courtroom before arguing their case with a judge; which is also where, if they know what they are doing, they will be successful.



The reason why you don't argue with cops, is because cops a} make the assumption that you are always under their jurisdiction, no matter what, and b} because if they are challenged sufficiently, will fall back on their source of authoritative superiority in practical terms; violence.  In plain English, that means antagonise them sufficiently, or make them feel sufficiently unsure of their authority, and have fun getting bashed or shot.

A judge won't do that.  A judge also assumes that he has power over you; but a judge's power is actually derived from a} contract, and b} his superior knowledge of the law, as the above video demonstrates; not brute physical force.  When a judge asks you for your name, what he is in fact doing, is making a legal offer of contract.  If you respond with the name that is on your birth certificate, then that is interpreted as acceptance of legal contract; and under the terms of that contract, he then has jurisdiction over you, including the right to send you to jail, etc.  Said contract, however, is actually the only source of his legal right to do any of what he does, which is what most people don't know.

Contract is in fact the only form of law which exists.  An application form for a driver's license, or any other form of permit, is in fact an offer of contract to the government.  Because you are the one in that case, who is petitioning them for contract, they can then name their terms.  They tell you that you must petition them for contract, in order to receive the privelege of driving, but that is a lie.  Their only recourse if you drive without petitioning for contract, is violence; (locking you up, the police bashing you, or otherwise intimidating you, etc) and violence is no more legally or morally legitimate when the government engages in it, than when we do.

Government has no inherent form of legal authority.  The only reason why they have legal authority over you, at the most fundamental level, is because your parents, acting as guardian at the time of your birth, registered you as the government's property, by signing a contract (the birth certificate) at the time, which legally declared that that was the case.



Please watch this movie, thor, and take some time to educate yourself on this subject.  You will come across a lot of skeptics who dismiss sovereigns as cranks, but the only reason why some aspirant sovereigns do not succeed in court, is because they don't know the system well enough to do so.  Most sovereigns tend to be mentally ill Christians, who attempt to derive said legal sovereignty purely from the fact that they are Christian.  This predictably fails.  Being Christian does not make you sovereign; being alive does.

I have also tended to get the impression, that you are someone who derives emotional security from deference to authority.  Your reference to the police here, and some of the reverence which I have seen you direct towards the military before, is what has given me that impression.  If that is the case, then initially at least, you will probably find it extremely difficult to come to terms with the fact that those people actually do not have any greater inherent authority than you at all; and they also aren't inherently more worthy of respect or reverence than you, either. 

A big part of individual sovereignty as a concept, is recognising that there is no hierarchy.  No one above, no one below.  No other individual is worthy of more or less respect than you yourself.

[petrus4]

This looks interesting, as well.  More on the subject.

[Amaterasu]

Somehow I missed this...  Thank You so much, Petrus.  I think We ALL should claim Our sovereignty.  But yes...  Tell it to the judge.