A Working Hypothesis about Sovereign Status Recognition by Loki, 11th March 2012 For about the last 15 months

, since early 2010, I have been researching and experimenting with legal theories about sovereignty. Just to give some background, prior to the beginning of my foray into the question of sovereignty, I had spent about a year intensively studying Austrian Economic theory, and a notable, and by me regarded as the 'Grandfather' in office of Austrian Theory, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, logical theory about law and property essentially points out something that I consider to be the essential root of sovereignty, expressed in a manner which is more clear and concise as to explaining from where sovereignty originates. The essence of his theory is that since no matter what obligations may be presumed upon a person, there is noone else who has any control over the capacity to initiate action within the human body, than the seemingly invisible entity often called by various people the 'spirit' that animates us, which is produced of course by the activity of the brain, which in humans is uniquely capable of modulating instinctive drives to serve the achievement of ends via a selection of means to gain these results. Ludwig von Mises expresses it thusly: all human action is rational, and any action that may seem to others to be 'irrational' is not in fact without a rational basis, as is well known in the Garbage In Garbage Out principle of computer science, rather that the invisible rating system which a person so acting uses to determine their decisions, is different, and maybe not based upon reality but a distorted filter that is not based on intersubjective or objective reality, the data they are basing their decisions and from those decisions, deciding actions which do not achieve what outside observers consider to be the desirable results. So, the first piece of data that I am basing my hypothesis is that this ability to control one's own actions makes one's physical body an unalienable, absolute right. Even when faced with overwhelming force constraining one's ability to exercise this sovereign exclusive power over one's body, there is always a slim margin of freedom that cannot ultimately be taken away. This is often spoken of by people who have suffered from enslavement, that no matter what the slave masters try to do, they cannot entirely separate a person from their ability to think independently, and from this grain of freedom with ongoing application to maximising freedom and finding a way out of slavery. I am designating this exclusive ability to control one's own thoughts to be the root of sovereignty. There is of course techniques that tyrants can use to try and fill people's minds with ideas that diminish further this freedom, brainwashing and persuasion, but ultimately it is impossible to entirely contain the human spirit within an externally imposed box, and given enough time people who hold strongly to this one piece of property that they can maintain control over, eventually subjugation is ended. Sometimes it is slow, sometimes it is fast, it depends on how deeply ingrained these mental, conceptual prisons are within the minds of a group of people who are subjugated mainly by force. No such notional confinement is entirely watertight, mainly because such subjugation is at odds with the factual reality of human experience. Mental prisons are always based upon absurd and illogical premises and it is through recognition of this contradiction that humans can slip out of the prison and move from there to liberation in society at large. Sovereignty of the State and the Concept of Allegiance The premise upon which all systems of government are based is the voluntary or presumed assignment of all but the grain of sovereignty to a State by people in exchange for an offered protection of people from the mischief of those with criminal intent to transfer property or rights to things. This is of course a fraudulent idea, because the only way to protect any given individual person's rights and properties would require a full-time guard including not just mercenary type soldier/guards, but also lawyers, who would enable the protection against incursions into intangible properties of people. This is of course impossible because it would mean for every individual there has to be at least two people, or at least two functions, that of physical and mental defence against criminality. Ultimately, based on the principle of unalienable sovereignty outlined above, all individual human beings are responsible for their own actions and for their own protection. Embodied in statutes like the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (“CQV”) of the UK parliament is a presumption by governments to claim any property or rights not properly defended by the rightful claimants to these things, are automatically reverted to the State. The State then has further obfuscated the means to assert such a reclamation of property reverted to be held in trust by the State in order to produce the result as discussed above, of creating a 'mental prison' in which people are controlled and restricted in their actions not by the boundaries of the Page 1 of 7

property of others, but by intangible ideas that are propagated to further the interests of those who gain benefits by being the agents of the State in a monopoly of these reverted claims, which is properly speaking a breach of trust by these agents – a trustee does not have the right to privately profit from publicly entrusted resources, but because the people at large have swallowed the lie that an intangible entity animated only by its agents, the State, has the exclusive right to claim anything unclaimed by default. It was the CQV that made it such that allegiance to the State claiming exclusive jurisdiction in a region of land is assumed and that therefore reclaiming this sovereignty, granted through this process of automatic allegiance, is something that has to be understood and acted upon by a person desirous of claiming back the sovereignty granted in this automatic pledging of allegiance. The general concept in law for what kind of law is involved in this process is 'Positive Law', which is in contrast to 'Negative Law', and these principles correlate to what is known in computer science but also in other fields, such as reputation systems in commerce, correlative to Whitelists and Blacklists. The CQV functions as the equivalent of a whitelist. Only that which is expressly designated as being different from the default can be regarded as such. This is of course much the same as the principles of law of 'innocent until proven guilty' which is a negative law principle, contrasted with the way that modern State run Courts operate especially in relation to offences that have no actual victim, but are instead a violation of custom codified into statutory law. By this process of Positive Law, we find ourselves in a position that in order to expand the boundaries of our individual sovereignty beyond what has been left for us by the State, now diminished to the extent that even many forms of speech are highly regulated, that we have to express in the form of a declaration that is properly formed and certified. It is my personal opinion that unless people start to reclaim their sovereignty that the State will expand to totality and render the bulk of humanity, perhaps even more than 99%, as effectively to be slaves, having the sole sovereignty, further damaged and limited by propaganda, of the exclusive control over their own thoughts. To this end, I have been researching the law for the last 15 months to figure out what the method by which recognition can be achieved of sovereignty. Notary Acknowledgement and the Apostille Convention The Hague Apostille Convention is a treaty between many, but not all nations, of a means to have an instrument (legal document) become 'legalised', which is another way of saying, that the document can then be recognised as being valid, between the sovereign jurisdictions of the various governments who have ratified this convention. There is a number of conditions limiting what kinds of documents may have an Apostille affixed to them, one of them is some kind of notary certification. Notary certificates consist of some kind of claim that is witnessed by a notary and is then signed by the notary, underneath the signature is a stamp specifying the qualification and name of the notary, a sticker is affixed to the right of the signature and qualification, and then the seal sticker is embossed and the signature also has the same emboss done. The reason for the embossing is it is difficult to duplicate an embossing plate without having access to the original, it is not easy to take the embossed paper and make an embossing plate out of it. The signature is embossed over as well for the same reason, to further protect against parties other than the registered notary from being able to produce such certificates. The following are the different types of notary certificates, sometimes also called 'Jurats' which notaries can apply to a document: 1. There is the 'True Copy' certificate, which affirms that a duplicate of a document is a faithful reproduction of another document, at least in regards to the substance of it (being the words and images on the document). 2. There is also the Affidavit, which is an attestation of the taking of an oath or affirmation by a person upon the content of a legal instrument to be true and its effect is to render the author swearing to the veracity of the contents of the document subject to the penalty of perjury if it can be proven that the author of the document intends to defraud via the claims therein embodied. 3. Finally, there is a type of notary certificate usually called 'Acknowledgement' which is simply an attestation that the person named in the qualification underneath their signature, is in fact the person who is claiming this is the case, that the signature was applied to the document by this person. Apostilles are a further type of notary certification, which are only allowed to be affixed to an instrument by the Page 2 of 7

secretary of state, or the equivalent within a government hierarchy, which is the office that handles foreign relations, these are the most senior agents of the State who are permitted to make agreements between the sovereign governments, such as treaties. For all governments, which is to say, pretty much all of them, a notary certificate is sufficient to allow a document to be recognised in a foreign jurisdiction, but to further improve the protection against forgery, the Apostille was invented as a means to get certification extended beyond the simple notary acknowledgement such that all signatories to the Apostille Convention will then accept such a document, originating from, usually, the 'private capacity' of the author of an instrument. To clarify, 'private capacity' means an act (authoring of a document) that does not involve a public entity, which is usually just another way of saying a branch of government. Such instruments can include private contracts between people and declarations, which are usually referred to as 'Deeds' or 'Titles', which usually involve an individual human or an entity staking a claim upon some piece of property or right. The Extrinsic Fraud of Birth Certificates as Identification An example of such a deed or title is the filing of the record of the birth of a child. Such instruments are completed and filed by a person in their private capacity. The reason for this is that, as an intangible, fictional entity as the government cannot produce real (or moveable), physical property. Only a living flesh and blood human being is capable of producing a child, for example. Thus the record of such an act by a living human being can only be made in their private capacity. These deeds, therefore, memorialise an event that is outside of the ownership of the State. In the specific case of birth registrations, therefore, the registry that accepts such filings of public records of events is therefore holding such titles and deeds in trust, as the granting of this title can only be done in the private capacity of the author of such deeds, it cannot logically be said that such an instrument is the property of the State, but rather that the State is obliged to ensure that the record is kept for public inspection and protected from loss. These obligations are the essential components of what a trustee does in a trust agreement. The trustee does not gain the right to personally profit from the property entrusted to them, for this would be a breach of trust. The fact of it being a trust arrangement, the filing of a record of birth, is not made explicit, for the reason of it being the basis of a package of information which is intended to then be used by the State in an act of extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud means deception through omission of information vital to determining the proper course of action by the victims of such fraud. Intrinsic fraud, to contrast, means to fabricate information. Since the information is produced by the party making such a record, it cannot be said that the State is engaging in intrinsic fraud, because the information is not produced by them. By not expressing this arrangement as an expressed trust agreement, they can then use the information to create a new instrument, in this case being a file record in the database of the registry accepting such lodgements of records to be acknowledged and recognised by the public. This transcription of the original filing then allows it to be implicit that anything issued out of this record is the property of the State. The form which this takes is the Birth Certificate. The fraud comes into this because this certificate is in fact issued from the transcript, and not authorised by the original author of the original filing. It is often written upon the birth certificates issued by the registries of many governments stipulating that the birth certificate is not to be used as identification, while at the same time requiring the presentation of this document in order to establish accounts for receiving the services of the State. By requiring the presentation of the Birth Certificate, or other instruments which require the presentation of the Birth Certificate in order to establish accounts, be they directly with the government or corporations under a public charter issued by the State, they acquire the tacit agreement that the person presenting such an instrument as identification is acting as an agent of the State, and by this, bound then to the rules governing the activities of the State, also known as “Acts” or “Statutes” and deceptively referred to as Laws, which, unqualified, is a fraudulent label, because they are only the laws of those in the employ or service of the State. This then permits the state to prosecute persons deemed to have breached these rules governing the activities of the State and its' agents, and is the fundamental basis of 'victimless crimes' such as possession of contraband items such as drugs or weapons, or the violation of transport department rules such as running a red light that does not lead to any harm to any other person's property. These are marketed by the State as being in the Page 3 of 7

interests of protecting the property and lives of other people, but in fact they are nothing more than a means to turning people into unpaid servants of the State, and extracting resources, including labour and property, fraudulently. This also is the fundamental basis of the claim to part of the product of a person's labour known as “Taxation”. In this last instance, it is generally understood that only those who have placed equity, in the form of labour or property, into an agreement, have any right to claim the profits of such labour or property. Reclaiming Sovereignty Fraudulently Assigned to the State In legal theory, there is a principle, which is embodied in one of the Maxims of Equity, “Equity will not allow a wrong to be without a remedy”. The meaning of this maxim is that for every wrong there must be a way to reconcile the debt thusly incurred by the wrongdoer, thus to resolve a dispute in the favour of the party determined to have suffered harm after the presentation of arguments and evidence in favour and against, resulting in the issuance of a Writ by the magistrate or judge, which is then binding to the parties to the controversy. Since, as elaborated in the foregoing, it is clear that the State is guilty of extrinsic fraud creating a wrongful obligation upon the uninformed victim (citizen) to a contract which there is no true evidence was ever in force, we have an example of a wrong, and therefore there must also be a remedy. Being that the State is the beneficiary of such criminal action, it cannot be expected, especially considering their extensive use of extrinsic fraud to achieve this wrongdoing, to give access to the information that allows one to get remedy. It has been the primary objective of my research over the last 15 months to find this remedy, as I consider myself to have suffered egregious harm as a result, both directly and indirectly through fraudulent actions by the State upon the market. Because any deed recorded by an individual in their private capacity is not the property of the State, the instrument tendered registering the birth of a child, being such an instrument, is evidence of a title to property that cannot rightfully be claimed by the State – as such an act would constitute enslavement as clearly laid out in virtually all governments' criminal code acts, we all therefore have access to a means by which to re-establish our rightful, sovereign claim over the property of our physical bodies, all that this property can produce (labour) and all property acquired through the exchange of labour or rightfully acquired property through commerce. The technical word in law for this is “Estate”. Since the birth registration instrument filed by our parents is held in trust by the registry it is filed with, this instruments is proof of obligation upon the State to protect the equitable (physical) property that this instrument, which constitutes a deed or title, refers, which is of course our physical body. Because we are incapable as babies of negotiating a contract, our parents or guardians are responsible for our actions and thus are charged with the responsibility to ensure that we do not harm others. Thus this deed of title to our physical bodies remains in trust to the State and until a proper party with the right to claim authority over this property. They don't tell us this because while we don't express our sole, sovereign authority over this property, they can continue their fraudulent transfer of the interests related to this property so long as such action does not conflict with their criminal codes, at least superficially. Thus, it has been my conclusion, and I did not come up with this myself, there is recent developments of information produced by others researching this same subject as me, who have confirmed through the responses of agents of the State, in particular judges and magistrates, that they do not have authority over these deeds and once they are brought forward, they lose the power to dictate what can be done with the property to which it refers. Dean Clifford, a researcher from Manitoba, Canada, has figured out this procedure I outlined above, where the birth registration filing is used to generate a title that is the property of the State, which then is used to defraud people out of their sovereign, inherent rights. He refers to this process as “Split Titles” though I think it is not strictly correct, as what I consider is happening is that they generate a title that superficially resembles the original title, which is private, but that is public, and through extrinsic fraud they trick us into joinder (a legal concept in Equity where two parties are joined into one) with their title, thus legalising their actions. So, the original birth record filing constitutes a sovereign title to our body and our estate. By itself it has some use in courts to nullify claims by the State, but this only puts them at bay, it does not close the gate for the State to attempt to continue to perpetuate the fraud and give criminal actions upon us and our estates in the future. Sovereign Immunity and the Denial of Standing In the international law of sovereigns, there is a concept called 'Sovereign Immunity'. This essentially says that Page 4 of 7

any subject or subordinate entity may not sue the State without it's permission. It is not expressly stated by most texts why they have this power, but the explanation in the foregoing about how they join us to their statutory title that superficially resembles the true original title (birth registration deed) shows that the reason for this is due to the concept of 'insubordination', a principle of corporate or admiralty law, which says that a bonded servant may not act without the permission of the master. The usually unstated fact about 'Citizens' is that they have pledged allegiance to a sovereign, which in modern times has largely migrated from being an actual king or queen, to a corporate entity known as a government. Allegiance is a contract of service in exchange for protection. It is to be sharply contrasted to the agreements and contracts between sovereigns, which are generally called 'treaties' or 'conventions'. In modern States' legal systems, there is acts which make the outrageous claim that all property within a geographical region, including people, is, unless otherwise declared to not be, the property of the State. Therefore, in order to get full recognition of individual sovereignty, which I define as where one's physical body and all lawfully acquired property and labour performed is under the exclusive and sole jurisdiction of the person themselves, one has to know how to make a declaration, a public record of a private expression, a private deed, become eligible for being 'heard', as it is only an equal to the entity of the State that the State is obliged to listen to, and to not consider such an expression amounts to an act of War by the State, which then also itself permits the sovereign making such an expression to not be obliged. In other words, if you express your sovereignty in the right form, whether it is accepted and recognised, or not, it stands as a declaration of independence from the State. Now, to back up a claim of sovereignty, one first has to have proof of a title to the property that one wishes to take out of the jurisdiction of the State, which is provably not the property of the State. The original birth registration deed, which I am going to start to refer to as a Birth Deed, is lodged with the registry of the State from the private capacity of our guardians, to which we are the rightful heirs. Thus it is not their property. Combine this Birth Deed with a declaration of independence, and you have a document which emits from one's private capacity that declares yourself and your estate as sovereign and independent, importantly, withdrawing allegiance, which is implied but probably worth stating expressly so as to eliminate any need to construe this as the corollary of declaring sovereignty. The means by which one makes a public record of a private deed or contract with the State, by States who have ratified the Apostille Convention, is to have the contract or deed bear a Notary Acknowledgement, which as I explained above, is simply the attestation of a duly authorised and oath-bound officer of the State, who has the capacity to certify such private deeds and by this enabling the instrument in question to become eligible for recognition by the State as a public record. The Apostille Convention specifies that such a deed (I should point out that a declaration is a type of deed) or contract acknowledged by a notary with a certificate of acknowledgement, is then eligible for an Apostille certificate. There is nothing in the Apostille Convention which allows for the State to deny the instrument thusly certified, emanating from the private capacity of the signatories to the instrument, and so, it should be immediately qualified to receive the Apostille certificate upon its rear face or in a multi-page instrument, bound with a notary ribbon, which is necessary for an Apostille because otherwise every page's rear face would have to bear an Apostille and they charge, at least here in Australia, $200 for the Apostille certificate to be applied to an instrument. The notary ribbon signifies that the document is a singular document and thus allows it to bear only one Apostille that 'legalises' the entire instrument. What makes this instrument then into a document with international recognition, is the fact that now, all signatories to the Apostille Convention will also recognise the deed or contract as being lawfully executed. As I mentioned above, now, if the State decides it will not recognise the claims within the instrument, it is committing an act of war, and if it accepts it, then it is recognising the claim of sovereignty therein. This is essentially my theory about how one reclaims ones' sovereignty at least for those formerly expressly or implicitly citizens of the State, for signatories of the Apostille Convention. Prior to the Apostille Convention getting broad acknowledgement of a deed or contract internationally would require negotiating it with all other governments relevant to one's claims, but with the Apostille Convention, one can in one certification, gain acknowledgement from most of the western nations.

Page 5 of 7

I am in the process of performing this procedure myself, and the declaration of independence document that I am using can be found below.

Page 6 of 7

D e c l a r a t i o n

o f

I n d e p e n d e n c e

o f

L o k i


David Nicholas of the family Vennik, henceforth to be addressed simply as “Loki” and pictured at left, affirms that the instrument reproduced above to be a true copy of the document that created a public record of my birth as a living human being, executed by my mother in her private capacity and not as a citizen of the Federal Government of Australia and its' constituent States (“The State”), constituting a title to private property existing outside of their jurisdiction, being my physical, living human body. I hereby declare, in my private, sovereign capacity as a private individual with the unalienable and exclusive power and right to control my body and its' actions, and my inherent right to engage in private commerce and the holding of private property and title to property, that my physical body is henceforth to be recognised to be the agent of a sovereign entity known as “Loki” and that I am henceforth and in perpetuity withdrawing the allegiance to The State, a presumed granting of my individual sovereignty that is now reassigned, as the sole and exclusive party with the prerogative to do such granting and reassignment, to myself. I pledge to, in all my dealings with all other sovereigns and their liege, to be honorable and peaceful, and to accept full unlimited commercial liability for all of my actions.

Executed on this day the 13th of March, 2012 by Loki, in his private, sovereign capacity:

________________ Loki

(right hand thumbprint of Loki)

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day the 13th of March, 2012 personally appeared Loki, to me well known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.


Page 7 of 7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful