There are many committed and sincere individuals in the ‘freedom’ movement who have spent decades trying to work their way through the entanglements and contortions of legalese. It took many years for these seekers to realise that there was a hidden and encoded language layered beneath the seemingly obvious meanings of the words. “Do you understand these charges against you?” has nothing to do with ‘understand’ in relation to comprehension- in legalese, ‘understand’ means ‘stand under’, a legal term meaning that the individual not only agrees to and accepts the charges against them, but that the individual also accepts the jurisdiction of the court as having authority over them. This is a *profoundly* different meaning to the one the ordinary individual believes is being used when they say ‘yes’ to the question. In terms of the controlling mechanisms of the current paradigm, the entire miasm is filled with such ‘weasel words’, words that are designed to bespell or enslave an individual into a situation that, in terms of technicality, they have actually agreed to. It is an entanglement that, if one takes it on face value and seeks to answer in its own territories, is doomed to failure- the freeman and sovereign movement is filled with examples of those who tried to turn the law’s weasel words on itself only to find themselves incarcerated for their efforts and frequently having lost everything in the process.
I spent two and a half years, averaging 50 hours a week, delving into the weasel words of the law. I made connections with many individuals who were deep into the world, and the private world of the other law that operates below the ‘public’ arena and that does not use acts and statues as its operating platform; in partnership with my friend and colleague we were responsible for private equity documents that ended up coming back to us as ‘you should see this, this is amazing!’ because others didn’t know we’d created it. I know my stuff in that realm. I know how deep it goes and I kept looking for a much deeper signal.
I began to learn the hidden legalese for ‘human being’. It was so disturbing that on two occasions I had to walk away from the studies because of the distress what I was learning was causing me. I found reference after reference to ‘cattle, property, chattel, collateral’ and in several very old books found much uglier references; I was inspired to go looking through the law definitions in my own country and search for what was being used here in Australia. Here is one example I found:
(1) In this Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires:
“Advisory Committee” means the Poisons Advisory Committee constituted by section 6.
“Analyst” means an analyst appointed or taken to be appointed under section 37A.
“Animal” means any animal (other than a human being), whether vertebrate or invertebrate, and includes but is not limited to:
(a) mammals, birds, bees, reptiles, amphibians, fish, crustaceans and molluscs, and
(b) the semen, ova or embryo of an animal (other than a human being) or any other substance or thing directly relevant to the reproduction of an animal (other than a human being).
For any individual remotely familiar with the position animals have in terms of the law, this was a profound revelation. I began to trace the interlinking connections between the various definitions contained in different laws and over a few months a pattern began to emerge, one in which human beings , by their own willing acceptance of the external authorities, had *in terms of the law* given away their autonomy and their sui generis, agreeing to be things rather than Beings in return for being taken care of. I moved this information around in many different ways, for quite some time, and began to look in other directions for remedies. What I kept coming across were repeated references to a state of Being that put an individual completely *outside* the paradigm’s laws and dictates. It was in this realm that I came across the term ‘sui generis’, which is a legal term that is known to the upper courts. The upper courts recognise the living, autonomous Being as being *outside* their jurisdiction. There are many, many reasons for this and many cross-referencing laws, statues and equity principles, and one of the foundational concepts is that the law recognises that it is not a living thing- modern courts are *corporations* and have been since ecclesiastical courts were replaced, although in the strictest sense even ecclesiastical courts were corporate and recognised this on a deep level. There have been contortions after contortions with the baseline view held as the operating platform- the average individual constantly gives away their spiritual autonomy in return for an illusion of being taken care of by an external authority. I began to investigate the concept of sui generis and came across other interconnected terms- autonomy, absolute- that indicated a way of Being that had at its roots a profoundly spiritual perspective and foundation. Essentially, the entirety of the law is created upon a knowing that individuals do not want real autonomy- and every time an individual engages with the controlling authorities it is from this position- as a no-thing, as one who has been declared property and under dominion- that all actions spring. The individual is always the trustee, never the beneficiary- and the trustees *always* pay- have you noticed that inmates in prison are called trustees?- there are all these multilayered traps that exist because the individual allows the entrapment.
There are many, many ways that this allowance happens. There are many rationalisations and explanations for it. The rationalisations and explanations do nothing to free the individual from their situation and as actual transformation is what I am interested in, I was looking for what actually *works* in terms of answering the entanglements of the system. I kept coming across the same references again and again. These became entwined with concepts and platforms that I had been born with but had never been able to discuss because of the extremely triggered responses that I encountered until I began to speak about the sui generis, the autonomy and the interlinking of these and the undoing of the construments that have been pointed at society for a very, very long time. These entanglements are not just legal- they are on every level of existence: spiritual, physical, mental, psychological and biological. They are utterly insidious and the undoing of them has *nothing to do with laws, or reforming laws, or revolutions, or arresting bankers, or shouting slogans, or voting in a different prison guard*- the remedy is in truly knowing and living into being a sui generis, autonomous and absolute Being. This has many aspects and the law has partly been created as a *detection device* regarding those that claim to ‘know who they are'; there are many youtube videos that demonstrate the dubious nature of going into a court and claiming one’s Self as ‘sovereign’- if it were the answer, this would work, but it frequently does not. The interesting question around that is ‘why not’?
The truly autonomous Being, the Being who *utterly and completely groks that they ARE their own authority, their own jurisdiction, their own alpha and omega points, the captain of their vessel, their own conscience, the Creator of their own life’s path- such a Being never *argues* their autonomy. There’s utterly nothing to debate. They’ll engage to a certain point *and* they will never ‘defend’- there is a world of difference between holding a discussion and defence or argument, both of which are deeply embedded in legalese and have powerfully disempowering meanings, if one investigates them from the legal perspective. A Sui Generis Being is one who is utterly, totally unique, not animal, not chattel, not property- they are a law and authority to themselves, with a jurisdiction that begins and ends with themselves- and the law can tell these Beings from the general. The terms ‘general’ and ‘special’ are also deeply embedded law words that absolutely govern the way an individual is perceived and treated, *and* if the individual does not know who they really are then they remain in the ‘general population’, which is fundamentally translated as ‘property’.
I have been striving to triangulate in many ways the importance of the true autonomy as activates this undoing mechanism. It’s impossible to discuss without having a solid foundation and I’ve been endeavouring to create the platforms for moving into those discussions because I thought there was in interest in this, I thought that evolution was a subject of interest. I now recognise that establishing such a platform is currently impossible and so I’m going to write how I have come to see things and how they interlock in my mind without attempting to engage the discussion as much. I am deeply interested and absorbed by the connections I’ve been shown, on many different platforms, and how they all interlock. The key has always been fundamentally spiritual *and* it has utterly nothing to do with any form of philosophy, religion, spiritual ‘wisdom’, gurus, dogmas or external authorities of any kind. This is what I’ll focus on exploring.