WORDS TO LIVE BY 131-133: "Just, God Is Sovereign & Intentions"
THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN "INDIVIDUAL" IS "SOVEREIGN" and that "WE the PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth). According to this hoax, the INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereign") is not bound by laws made by representatives that "We the People" (the REAL "sovereign") ELECT to make them. But, none of this is so. In nations ruled by a King or Queen, the word "SOVEREIGN" means the King or Queen. But, in nations ruled by THE PEOPLE, the word "SOVEREIGN" means ALL OF THE PEOPLE, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, not the single "INDIVIDUAL" AS A TINY PART OF THE WHOLE. This means that here in the United States, "We the People", COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE legally stand in the shoes of the Kings and Queens of yesteryear and we COLLECTIVELY rule ourselves, But here in the United States, no single INDIVIDUAL among us is "SOVEREIGN" and no single INDIVIDUAL among us stands in the shoes of the Kings or Queens of yesteryear and no single INDIVIDUAL can rule anything. FOR PROOF, SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO POST #108 HERE. https://www.waccobb.net/for... The mistaken belief that the "INDIVIDUAL" is "SOVEREIGN" is the result of amateur legal theorists being unable to read. They are unable to distinguish between SINGULAR and PLURAL terms. When they read the phrase, "We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms), they mistakenly interpret it as the phrase, "I the Person" (both of which are SINGULAR terms). But, this is not so. The phrase, "We the People" refers to ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not the single INDIVIDUAL speaking individually as a tiny part of the whole. Likewise, when amateur legal theorists read the phrase, "consent of the governed", they mistakenly think that it refers to a single INDIVIDUAL person (AS IF ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE NATION IS "GOVERNED" BY THE GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE"). This is why they mistakenly think that every single INDIVIDUAL in the nation must INDIVIDUALLY "CONSENT" to the law, to the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and to the jurisdiction of the courts in order for them to govern that INDIVIDUAL. But, this is not so. "We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms) "CONSENT" to our government COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, not INDIVIDUALLY outside the election process. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "THE PEOPLE (a plural term) exercise THEIR (also a plural term) SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH THEIR (also a plural term) VOTES.." DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN": http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/S/Sovereign DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGNTY" http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/S/Sovereign Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS ALSO A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/bro....wse/consent-of-the-g U.S. LAW ON WHETHER ALL OF THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, ARE "SOVEREIGN" OR WHETHER THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN 1. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/.... This case reads, "The term`citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law [when MONARCHS ruled supreme], and the change of phrase [from "subject" to "citizen"] has entirely resulted from the change [in the form] of government [from a "MONARCHY" to a "REPUBLICAN" form of government]. THE SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN [a "MONARCH"] TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" CLICK HERE] http://www.duhaime.org/Lega... https://dictionary.cambridg...]. TRANSLATION: SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A "MONARCH") TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A SOVEREIGN MONARCH IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE SOVEREIGN "STATE.'" 2. Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a contrast between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]." (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL. 3). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NEITHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). 4). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/... In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIDUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").