Crown & Government Sovereignty: Real or Deception?

NAP - Expert
13 hours ago
20 min read

Understanding the True Nature of Sovereignty Claims Over Living Beings

Introduction: The Claim We're Told Not to Question

From birth, we're taught a fundamental assumption: that the Crown and government are sovereign over us. That we are subjects of the Crown, citizens of the state, bound to obey laws we never agreed to, subject to taxation we never consented to, and answerable to authorities we never appointed.

We're told this is natural. Inevitable. The way things are and must be.

But what if it's a deception?

What if the Crown and government are sovereign over something - but not over you?

What if the entire structure operates through a legal mechanism you were never taught, using presumptions you were never told about, claiming ownership of something they never lawfully acquired?

This article examines the claim of sovereignty - not to reject all authority or law, but to understand its true basis and extent. What we'll discover is that Crown and government sovereignty is real - but over a very specific thing. And that thing is not the living, breathing human being you are.

We'll explore:

What sovereignty actually means (and what it doesn't)
Natural law: the foundation of true sovereignty
The difference between land (England) and jurisdiction (United Kingdom)
The legal person mechanism that creates the claim
How presumption substitutes for lawful acquisition
Why the Crown and government can never be sovereign over living beings
What this means for you

Part 1: Natural Law - The Foundation of True Sovereignty

Before we examine claims of sovereignty, we must establish the foundation: natural law.

What Is Natural Law?

Natural law is the principle that certain rights and freedoms exist by virtue of being alive and conscious - not because any government grants them.

Natural law recognizes:

You exist as a living being before any government does
You possess inherent capacities: thought, speech, movement, labour
These capacities are yours by nature of existence
No external authority gave them to you
Therefore, no external authority can legitimately claim ownership of them

Think of it this way:

When you were born, you could already think, feel, move (eventually), communicate (crying, then speech), and labour (even if initially just grasping). These capacities are inherent. The government didn't install them. The Crown didn't grant them. They're yours by nature of being alive.

Natural law asks a simple question: If the government didn't give you these capacities, by what right can it claim ownership or control of them?

Everyone Is Born Equal

This is not political ideology. This is observable reality.

When a living being is born:

It possesses the same fundamental capacities as any other living being
It has the same inherent rights: life, liberty, self-ownership
It is not born owing anything to anyone
It is not born subject to any authority it hasn't consented to

The principle: No one is born with legitimate authority over another. All authority between living beings must be based on consent - either explicit or at minimum, established through fair process, not deception.

What this means:

The idea that some people (royalty, government officials) are born with legitimate authority over others (subjects, citizens) contradicts natural law. If everyone is born equal, authority must be acquired - and acquired lawfully, through genuine consent.

Natural Law vs Statutory Law

There are two types of law operating simultaneously:

Natural Law:

Exists by nature of consciousness and existence
Recognizes inherent rights and capacities
Based on harm principle: don't harm others, don't take their property, don't violate their consent
Universal and timeless
Does not require a government to exist

Statutory Law:

Created by governments and legislatures
Applies to legal constructs (persons, corporations, statutory entities)
Based on whatever government declares
Varies by jurisdiction
Requires government apparatus to exist and enforce

Critical distinction:

Natural law applies to living beings by virtue of their existence.

Statutory law applies to legal persons by virtue of their creation by statute.

The question this article examines: When government claims sovereignty over "you," which category are they addressing? The living being (natural law) or the legal person (statutory law)?

Spoiler: They claim the former. They can only lawfully claim the latter.

Part 2: What Is Sovereignty?

Before examining the claim of sovereignty, we must understand what sovereignty actually means.

Definition of Sovereignty

Sovereignty = Supreme authority within a defined domain. The power to govern without external control.

Key elements:

Authority - the right to make rules, enforce them, and adjudicate disputes
Within a domain - sovereignty has boundaries (geographic, jurisdictional, or conceptual)
Without external control - no higher authority within that domain

True Sovereignty vs Claimed Sovereignty

True sovereignty exists when:

Authority is legitimate (based on consent, ownership, or natural right)
Domain is properly defined
Power is exercised within proper bounds

Claimed sovereignty exists when:

Authority is asserted but not proven
Domain is unclear or overstated
Power exceeds legitimate bounds

Example of true sovereignty:

You are sovereign over your own body. You have supreme authority to decide what you eat, where you go, what you think. No one has legitimate claim to override this without your consent (except to prevent you harming others).

This is true sovereignty because:

You own your body (natural law)
Your domain is clearly defined (your body and its capacities)
No one gave you this sovereignty - it exists by nature of you being alive

Example of claimed sovereignty:

A king claims sovereignty over all people in a territory because his ancestor conquered the land 800 years ago.

This is claimed sovereignty because:

Conquest doesn't create legitimate authority over living beings (only force)
The claim extends beyond what was actually acquired (land vs people)
Current living beings never consented to this arrangement

Sovereignty Over What You Create

An established principle:

You are sovereign over what you create.

Examples:

You write a book - you're sovereign over that book (copyright)
You build a company - you're sovereign over that company's operations
You buy land - you're sovereign over that land (within legal frameworks)
A government creates a corporation - government is sovereign over that corporation

This principle is crucial:

If government creates legal persons through birth registration, government is sovereign over those legal persons.

But government did not create the living being. Therefore, government cannot be sovereign over the living being by this principle.

The question becomes: Can government acquire sovereignty over living beings through some other means? If so, what means? And were those means lawfully employed?

Part 3: The Dual Reality - Land vs Jurisdiction

To understand how sovereignty claims actually operate, we must distinguish between two concepts that are deliberately conflated: land and jurisdiction.

England - The Land

England is physical territory:

Soil, water, mountains, forests
The physical space where people live
Real property that can be seen, touched, walked upon
Existed before any government named it "England"

This is the land.

People live on this land. They build homes, grow food, establish communities. Their relationship with the land is beneficial: they use it, occupy it, improve it, draw sustenance from it.

Beneficial interest in land:

When you live on land, work it, improve it, you hold beneficial interest - the right to use and enjoy it. This is the substance of ownership, regardless of what documents say.

United Kingdom - The Jurisdiction

United Kingdom is a legal jurisdiction:

A defined territorial claim
A statutory framework
A set of rules, courts, enforcement apparatus
A governance structure

This is not the land itself - this is a claim over the land.

Think of it as an overlay - a conceptual framework imposed on the physical territory, claiming authority to regulate activities within that territory.

Legal title to jurisdiction:

The Crown/government holds legal title to the jurisdiction called "United Kingdom." They created the framework, administer the rules, operate the courts.

But legal title is not beneficial interest.

Legal Title vs Beneficial Interest

A fundamental principle in law:

Legal title = the formal, registered ownership on paper Beneficial interest = the actual use, enjoyment, and substance of ownership

These can be - and often are - separated.

Example: A Trust

Trustee holds legal title (name on documents)
Beneficiary holds beneficial interest (receives the benefits, use, enjoyment)
The trustee administers, but the beneficiary owns in substance

Applied to territory:

Legal title: Crown/government holds legal title to the jurisdiction "United Kingdom" - the administrative framework, the statutory overlay.

Beneficial interest: Living beings hold beneficial interest in the land called "England" - they live on it, use it, work it, enjoy it.

The confusion is deliberate:

When government says "United Kingdom," they mean the jurisdiction (which they created and administer).

When you hear "United Kingdom," you think of the land you live on.

This conflation allows government to claim sovereignty over the beneficial interest (you, living on the land) by exercising sovereignty over the legal title (the jurisdiction).

But sovereignty over legal title doesn't automatically include sovereignty over beneficial interest - unless beneficial interest was validly transferred.

Was it?

Part 4: The Person Mechanism - How the Claim Is Made

Now we reach the mechanism by which Crown and government claim sovereignty over living beings: the legal person.

The Living Being vs The Legal Person

You are two things in law - and they're not the same:

1. The Living Being

This is you in physical reality:

Flesh and blood
Conscious, thinking, feeling
Able to move, speak, labour
Existing in nature
Possessing inherent capacities and rights

The living being exists before any government, outside any statutory framework, by nature.

2. The Legal Person [YOUR NAME]

This is a statutory construct:

Created by birth registration
Exists only within the legal system
A record in government databases
A name on documents
An empty title that requires someone to act for it

The legal person exists because government created it, within the statutory framework.

These are not the same entity.

The living being is you. The legal person is a title, a legal construct, a record.

Think of it like this:

If you own a car, there's:

The actual car (metal, engine, wheels - the physical reality)
The title document (a piece of paper saying you own the car)

The title document represents the car, but it's not the car. You can't drive the title document. You can't put fuel in the title document. The title is a legal construct about the car.

Similarly:

The legal person [YOUR NAME] is a legal construct representing a claim about you - but it's not you.

How the Person Is Created

Birth registration process:

A living being is born
Parents register the birth
Government creates a record: [FULL NAME], Date of Birth, Place of Birth
Birth certificate issued
Legal person [YOUR NAME] now exists in the system

What happened here?

The government created a legal person - a statutory construct, an administrative entry. This person exists in government databases, on documents, in the legal framework.

What did NOT happen:

The government did not create the living being. The government did not acquire ownership of the living being. The government did not gain sovereignty over the living being's inherent capacities.

But here's the trick:

From that moment forward, the system operates as if:

The living being IS the legal person
The legal person IS the living being
They're one and the same
Obligations on the legal person automatically bind the living being

This is the deception.

The Agency Presumption

The gap:

Legal persons (like all legal constructs - corporations, trusts, etc.) cannot act by themselves. They have no hands, no voice, no mind. They're entries in a database.

For a legal person to do anything, a living being must act as its agent.

Agency = when one party (agent) acts on behalf of another party (principal).

For example: A company director acts as agent for the company. The director (living being) makes decisions and takes actions on behalf of the company (legal person).

This requires a contract:

Agency is a contractual relationship. It requires:

Offer (principal offers the agency role)
Acceptance (agent accepts)
Consideration (something of value exchanged)
Intention to create legal relations
Certainty of terms
Capacity of both parties

The presumption in the statutory system:

The system presumes that you (living being) are the agent for the legal person [YOUR NAME].

But was an agency contract ever formed?

Did the legal person [YOUR NAME] offer you the role of agent?
Did you knowingly accept that role?
Was consideration provided?
Were the terms disclosed and agreed?

No.

The connection between living being and legal person operates by presumption, not by contract.

You respond to the name. You use the documents (passport, driving license, etc.). You participate in the system. The system treats this as "acceptance" of the agency role.

But participation based on deception is not consent.

If you were never told:

That the legal person is separate from you
That acting for the legal person requires an agency contract
What the terms of that relationship are
What you're agreeing to by "accepting"

...then you couldn't have consented. You were operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what you were doing.

This is where the sovereignty claim enters:

By presuming you are agent for the legal person, the system can impose obligations on the legal person and enforce them against you (the living being acting as presumed agent).

Sovereignty over the legal person becomes, through presumption, sovereignty over you.

Part 5: The Ownership Claim - What Sovereignty Over Persons Actually Means

When we examine what "sovereignty" over legal persons actually entails, a disturbing picture emerges.

What Does Government Claim Authority Over?

Through the legal person mechanism, government claims authority to:

1. Tax your labour (income tax)

You labour with your body and mind
You create value
Government claims a portion
If you refuse, government can seize your property or imprison you

This is a claim on the fruits of your labour - your productive capacity.

2. Regulate your movement (licensing, travel restrictions)

Driving license required to travel freely
Passport required to leave jurisdiction
Restrictions on where you can live, work, travel

This is a claim on your physical liberty - your freedom of movement.

3. Conscript your service (jury duty, historically military conscription)

Compulsory service to the state
Your time and labour directed by government
Refusal punishable

This is a claim on your time and person - your autonomy.

4. Control your property (property taxes, compulsory purchase)

Ongoing taxation on property you "own"
State can compulsorily purchase if desired
Regulations on what you can do with "your" property

This is a claim on your possessions - the fruits of your past labour.

5. Regulate your body (drug laws, medical mandates, restrictions on substances you can consume)

What you can put in your own body
Medical treatments you must or cannot have
Substances prohibited regardless of harm

This is a claim on your physical body - your most fundamental property.

What Is This If Not Ownership?

Let's be direct:

If an entity claims the right to:

Take a portion of everything you produce (taxation)
Control where you can go (licensing and travel restrictions)
Compel your service (conscription, jury duty)
Seize your property (compulsory purchase, forfeiture)
Regulate what you do with your own body (drug laws, mandates)

What is that relationship?

In any other context, we would call this ownership.

If you claimed these rights over another living being - to take their labour, control their movement, compel their service, seize their property, regulate their body - that would be slavery or servitude.

When government claims these rights over you, it's called "sovereignty."

Same substance. Different word.

The Constitutional Question

United Kingdom:

Magna Carta (1215), Chapter 39:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions... except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Question: If you're a "free man," how can you be subject to claims on your labour, movement, property, and body without your consent?

Answer: You can't. Unless...

...unless you're not being addressed as the free man (living being) but as the legal person (statutory construct).

United States:

13th Amendment:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States."

Question: If compulsory taxation of your labour, conscription of your service, and restrictions on your movement exist, how is this not servitude?

Answer: It is servitude - unless you consented. But consent requires disclosure. If the mechanism was never disclosed, was consent ever given?

The Servitude Analysis

Servitude = a condition where one entity holds enforceable claims over another's:

Labour (can compel work or take fruits of labour)
Movement (can restrict where they go)
Property (can seize or regulate)
Time (can demand service)
Body (can regulate or violate autonomy)

If government holds all these claims without your knowing, informed consent, that is servitude.

The only way this is lawful:

If you consented to it.

But did you?

Were you told at birth: "We're creating a legal person, and if you act as agent for it, you'll be subject to all these claims"?
Were you given a choice to decline?
Were the terms disclosed?
Did you understand what you were agreeing to?

No. The presumption was never disclosed. The choice was never offered. The consent was never informed.

This means the claim of sovereignty operates through deception, not lawful acquisition.

Part 6: Royalty and Government - The Historical Claim

To understand why Crown and government claim sovereignty over living beings (which they cannot lawfully possess), we must understand the historical basis of their claim.

The Basis of Royal Sovereignty

How did the Crown acquire its claimed sovereignty?

Historical reality: Conquest and force.

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066. He defeated the existing power structure. He declared himself King. He distributed land to his supporters.

This established:

Ownership of land (by conquest)
A feudal hierarchy (by force)
Claimed sovereignty over the territory

But conquest creates possession, not legitimate authority over living beings.

Think about it:

If someone breaks into your house, claims it as theirs, and has enough force to hold it against you - do they now have legitimate sovereignty over you?

No. They have possession through force. They don't have legitimate authority.

The same applies at the scale of nations:

Conquest gave the Crown possession of land and the ability to enforce its will. It did not give the Crown legitimate sovereignty over the living beings on that land - any more than a home invader gains legitimate sovereignty over the occupants.

But over centuries, possession through force became treated as legitimate authority.

The Feudal System - Sovereignty Over Land, Claimed Over People

The feudal structure:

King claims ownership of all land (by conquest)
King grants land to nobles (in exchange for service)
Nobles grant land to knights and vassals (in exchange for service)
Peasants work the land (paying rent, providing labour)

This system established sovereignty over land:

The King owned the land (by claimed right of conquest). Everyone else held land from the King - conditionally, in exchange for service or rent.

But notice the shift:

Sovereignty over land (property claim)
Became sovereignty over those using the land (authority claim)

If you wanted to farm, you had to use someone's land. All land was claimed. Therefore, to survive, you had to enter the feudal relationship.

This created de facto sovereignty over people - not through legitimate authority, but through monopoly on essential resources (land).

Modern parallel:

Today, all land is claimed. All resources are controlled. To survive in the modern system, you must participate in the statutory framework - use the currency, pay the taxes, obtain the licenses.

This creates de facto sovereignty over living beings - not through legitimate authority, but through monopoly on participation in the economic system.

Government - Extension of Crown Sovereignty

Modern government is an extension and evolution of Crown sovereignty:

The Crown created Parliament. Parliament creates statutes. Statutes create the framework of obligations and restrictions.

But the underlying claim remains:

Sovereignty over territory → sovereignty over legal framework → sovereignty over participants in that framework.

The key question never asked:

By what right does Crown sovereignty over legal framework translate to Crown sovereignty over living beings?

The answer:

It doesn't - unless living beings consent to be bound by that framework.

And if that consent was obtained through deception (by never disclosing that the "person" addressed is a legal construct requiring agency), is it valid?

Part 7: The Play on Words - Sovereignty Over Persons, Not People

Now we see the full picture of the deception:

What Crown and Government Are Actually Sovereign Over

Crown and government ARE legitimately sovereign over:

1. Legal persons they create

Birth registration creates [YOUR NAME]
Government created it, government is sovereign over it
This is legitimate - sovereignty over what you create

2. Corporations and statutory entities

Companies House registers companies
Government created them, government is sovereign over them
This is legitimate

3. The statutory framework

Government creates the laws, courts, administrative apparatus
Government is sovereign over the framework it created
This is legitimate

4. The territorial jurisdiction

Crown holds legal title to "United Kingdom" (the jurisdiction)
Crown is sovereign over the administrative overlay
This is legitimate sovereignty over legal title

What Crown and government are NOT legitimately sovereign over:

1. Living beings

Government didn't create you
Can't be sovereign over what it didn't create
Your inherent capacities (thought, movement, labour) are yours by nature

2. Beneficial interest in the land

Living beings occupy, use, improve the land
Hold beneficial interest regardless of legal title claims
Sovereignty over legal title (jurisdiction) ≠ sovereignty over beneficial interest (actual use and occupation)

3. Natural rights

Life, liberty, property, self-ownership
These exist by nature, not by government grant
Government can't be sovereign over what it didn't grant

The Deceptive Conflation

The system operates by conflating:

What government claims: "Sovereignty over everyone in the United Kingdom"

What this appears to mean: Sovereignty over the living beings (people)

What it actually means: Sovereignty over the legal persons (statutory constructs) within the jurisdiction (legal framework)

The shift happens through language:

"United Kingdom" sounds like the land but means the jurisdiction
"Person" sounds like the living being but means the legal construct
"Citizen" sounds like a living resident but means a legal status
"Subject" sounds like a living human but means one subject to the framework

By never explaining the distinction between:

Living being and legal person
Land and jurisdiction
Natural rights and statutory privileges
Beneficial interest and legal title

...the system maintains the illusion that government sovereignty over statutory constructs equals sovereignty over living beings.

Why the Deception Is Necessary

If the truth were disclosed:

"We are sovereign over the legal person [YOUR NAME], which is a statutory construct we created. If you choose to act as agent for that legal person, you'll be subject to all obligations we impose on it: taxation, regulation, restrictions, potential conscription, and control over your economic activity. Do you consent to act as agent for this legal person?"

How many people would consent if asked directly?

This is why the mechanism is never disclosed. This is why the person/living being distinction is never taught. This is why agency law is never explained in school.

Because informed consent would not be given.

Deception is necessary to maintain the claim of sovereignty over living beings - because that claim has no lawful basis.

Part 8: The Reality - Natural Law Sovereignty

Here is the truth that government and Crown cannot acknowledge:

Every Living Being Is Sovereign Over Themselves

By natural law:

You are sovereign over:

Your own body
Your own thoughts
Your own labour
Your own capacities
Property you lawfully acquire

This sovereignty is inherent - it exists by nature of you being alive and conscious.

No government granted it. No Crown bestowed it. No statute created it.

Therefore: No government can legitimately claim it. No Crown can lawfully take it. No statute can remove it - absent your consent.

Government Sovereignty Is Limited

Government is sovereign within its proper sphere:

Legal persons it creates
Statutory frameworks it administers
Corporations it charters
The legal title to jurisdiction

Government is NOT sovereign over:

Living beings (unless they consent)
Natural rights (life, liberty, property)
Beneficial interest in the land (absent lawful transfer)
Inherent capacities (thought, speech, movement, labour)

This is not anarchy or rejection of all law.

This is recognition that government authority has limits - and those limits are defined by consent and natural law.

The Consent Requirement

For government to exercise authority over a living being, consent is required.

Consent can be:

1. Express - explicitly given, in writing, with full disclosure

2. Implied - through conduct, where:

The arrangement is well-known and understood
Participation is voluntary
Benefits and obligations are clear
Party can exit if desired

3. Presumed - assumed from participation, where:

The arrangement is hidden
Mechanism never disclosed
Party doesn't know they're consenting
No meaningful choice to decline

Current system operates on presumed consent through deception:

You use the name, use the documents, participate in the system. The system presumes this means you consent to be bound by all obligations.

But this fails the requirements for valid consent:

Arrangement not disclosed (person mechanism hidden)
Mechanism not explained (agency presumption not taught)
Party doesn't know what they're consenting to (conflation of living being and person)
No meaningful choice (all resources controlled, participation necessary for survival)

Presumed consent through deception is not valid consent.

What Lawful Sovereignty Would Look Like

If government wanted to exercise lawful sovereignty over living beings:

1. Full disclosure

Explain the person mechanism
Clarify that living being ≠ legal person
Disclose that agency is being presumed
Detail what obligations attach to the agency role

2. Genuine consent

Offer the choice to participate or decline
Provide alternatives for those who decline
Make participation truly voluntary
Allow exit without penalty to fundamental rights

3. Ongoing consent

Regular opportunity to review and renew consent
Right to withdraw consent
No compulsion to continue participation

If this process were followed, government sovereignty would be legitimate - based on actual consent.

But this process has never been followed.

Therefore, current claims of sovereignty over living beings rest on deception, not lawful authority.

Part 9: What This Means For You

Understanding the true nature of sovereignty claims has profound implications:

You Are Not Naturally Subject to Crown or Government

By natural law:

You were born free
You possess inherent rights
You are sovereign over yourself
You owe nothing to anyone based merely on existence

Crown and government sovereignty over you operates by:

Presumption (not proven authority)
Deception (mechanism hidden)
Conflation (person/living being treated as same)
Monopoly (participation necessary for survival)

This is not lawful sovereignty. This is claimed sovereignty operating through deception.

The Legal Person Is Separate From You

Understanding this distinction is crucial:

The legal person [YOUR NAME]:

Statutory construct
Created by government
Government IS sovereign over it
Has no inherent rights (only statutory privileges)
Requires an agent to have any capacity

You (the living being):

Natural existence
Not created by government
Government NOT sovereign over you (absent consent)
Possess inherent rights by nature
Possess inherent capacity (don't need anyone to act for you)

The system conflates these to make government sovereignty over the legal person appear to be sovereignty over you.

Once you see the distinction, the deception becomes clear.

Agency Is a Choice, Not an Obligation

The agency relationship between you and the legal person:

Was never contracted
Was never disclosed
Was presumed from conduct
Can be challenged

You are not obligated to act as agent for the legal person [YOUR NAME].

If you choose not to act as agent:

Statutory obligations address the legal person
Legal person has no agent to enforce against
Government must prove you are agent (they can't - no contract exists)

This doesn't mean you're "above the law":

Natural law still applies (don't harm others, don't take their property)
Contracts you actually made still bind you
Property you actually agreed to pay for can be claimed

But statutory obligations imposed on the legal person without your informed consent to act as agent cannot lawfully reach you.

Beneficial Interest Never Transferred

The substance of ownership:

Your labour is yours
Your productive capacity is yours
The fruits of your work are yours
Your body and its capacities are yours

These constitute beneficial interest in yourself.

Government holds:

Legal title to the legal person (they created it)
Administrative authority over the statutory framework

Government does NOT hold:

Beneficial interest in you (was never transferred)
Ownership of your capacities (can't own what it didn't create)
Legitimate claim on your labour (absent contract)

By natural law and equity:

Beneficial interest in yourself remains with you - the living being.

The statutory system claims it through deception. That claim is unlawful.

The Land vs Jurisdiction Distinction Matters

England (the land):

You live on it
You occupy it
You improve it
You hold beneficial interest through use

United Kingdom (the jurisdiction):

Government administers it
Government created the framework
Government holds legal title to the overlay

Government sovereignty over the jurisdiction (legal title) does NOT equal sovereignty over you on the land (beneficial interest).

You can live on the land while declining to participate as agent in the jurisdiction.

What You Can Do

Understanding sovereignty doesn't require revolution. It requires recognition:

1. See the distinction

Living being vs legal person
Natural law vs statutory law
Beneficial interest vs legal title
Land vs jurisdiction

2. Challenge the presumption

You are not the legal person
You have not contracted to be its agent
Beneficial interest never transferred
Consent was never informed

3. Establish your position

Declare your beneficial interest
Clarify you are not agent for the legal person
Establish trust structure protecting beneficial interest
Respond from position of beneficiary, not presumed agent

4. Recognize limits

Natural law still applies
Actual contracts still bind you
Don't harm others
Don't take others' property

This is not about escaping all law. This is about recognizing which law applies to whom, and on what basis.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Revealed

Crown and government sovereignty is real - but limited.

They are sovereign over:

What they create (legal persons, corporations, statutory framework)
What they administer (territorial jurisdiction, courts, administrative apparatus)
What is consented to (where genuine consent exists)

They are NOT sovereign over:

Living beings (absent genuine consent)
Natural rights (life, liberty, property, self-ownership)
Beneficial interest (unless validly transferred)
Inherent capacities (thought, speech, movement, labour)

The claim of sovereignty over living beings operates through:

Creating the legal person (legitimate - government created it)
Presuming you are agent for that person (not legitimate - no contract, no disclosure)
Conflating person with living being (deceptive - they're separate)
Imposing obligations on person (legitimate on the construct)
Enforcing against you as presumed agent (not legitimate - agency never contracted)

This structure violates:

Natural law (everyone born equal, sovereignty over self)
Agency law (requires contract with offer, acceptance, consideration)
Trust law (beneficial interest not validly transferred)
Equity (fraud vitiates everything, equity will not compel acceptance of a trust)
Constitutional protections (Magna Carta - "no free man shall be seized or stripped of his rights except by lawful judgment")

The claim is maintained through:

Never teaching the person mechanism
Never explaining agency requirements
Conflating living being with legal person
Monopoly on resources (forcing participation for survival)
Punishment for those who question

But the claim has no lawful foundation.

You were born sovereign over yourself. You remain sovereign over yourself. No government can change this without your genuine, informed consent.

The question is: Now that you understand the mechanism, what will you do?

Will you continue operating as presumed agent for the legal person, allowing government claims on your labour, property, and liberty?

Or will you recognize the distinction, challenge the presumption, and reclaim your beneficial interest in yourself?

The choice is yours. It always has been. You just weren't told you had a choice.

Now you know.

This article is based on established principles of natural law, agency law, trust law, equity, and statutory interpretation. It does not advocate unlawful conduct or harm to others. It advocates understanding the true basis and extent of government authority, and recognizing that living beings possess inherent sovereignty that cannot be lawfully claimed absent genuine consent.

Useful Information? Donate Now