My observation of the pattern of fiction:
a group of usurpers come along and tortiously convert the energetic abundance of the planet into *their property*. Tortious conversion is a trust term; much of what is going on in the deep levels of ‘law’ is actually trust. The UCC is the *public* side of things, trust law is the *private* side- everything that is being done on a public scale is being done *via trusts*: don’t be fooled by the assumption of ‘trust law’ into statutory, this is another fiction. There most definitely still is a private side to the court, it’s just not available to fiction and it functions completely differently to statutory.
The ‘trustees’ have tortiously converted the res into their *own property* and this is how they are doing things like trashing the rights of the individual, consuming the planet etc- private trust law rather than public. It is irrelevant to this discussion just how they have done that: suffice to say that ‘trust law’ is as fictional as any *other* law, because *any law that exists outside autonomy/free will of the individual is a fiction*. This is important to remember- it seems obvious but in practice most individuals keep falling back into the trap of heteronomy- the action of attempting to cover another individual with an authority external to the individual. This is *also* really important if one wishes to use sui generis as one’s pathway out of ALL external jurisdictions.
So in the beginning- it doesn’t matter which ‘beginning’ one favours at this point, it’s the essentials that matter- what we have is the GIFT of life, life having been *freely gifted* to each Being by their creator. This is important in the consideration: in the *beginning*, was our life/spirit/Self *freely gifted* or did it come with conditions? Was it a gift, or a contract? This is a crucial element to the matter of free will, which is part of the foundational perspective of ‘free from external authority’ that many individuals are now claiming: if the granting of life was conditional or contractual- which is the basis upon which all those who follow the concept of an externally authoritative ‘god’ claim their ‘authority’- then the individual has no free will: they are BOUND by the ‘will’ of their creator and they are not free to evolve or explore as Beings. They are not free: their life is conditionally extended to them based on their obedience to parameters that they had no part in creating. This means that the ‘offer’ of life was conditional and in order to experience ‘life’ a Being had to accept the conditions- but how can a Being who has *not yet been created* accept any terms of conditionality surrounding their creation? If they can’t, and these conditions are handed to them *after* their creation, is this not a colourable contract? Is this not unclean hands on the part of the creator- to create a Being and then threaten them with extinction *unless they accept the creator’s terms*? This is, in part, the bizarre logic that ‘law’ and ‘religion’ is based on, but nobody looks at the origins of these fictions as being embedded in the *beginnings*
Can anyone fault my perspective on this so far? Can anyone demonstrate to me how the creation of a sentient, self aware Being under these conditions would permanently preclude the existence of ‘free will’ in the same manner that the governments preclude free will on the part of ‘citizens’? If we look at the principle ‘as above, so below’, I observe *exactly the same behaviours on the part of the ‘creator’ that Marcus speaks of in his videos as I do in the creations such as government and religions, *all* the control systems that are part of heteronomy. Can anyone demonstrate to me how such behaviour on the part of a ‘creator’ is *not* heteronomy? ‘By their fruits you shall know them’, yes? So I’m seeing the foundations of the heteronomy in the very creation stories and religions that purportedly underpin the metaphysical element of what’s going on in the world.
Contrast this with another concept: that the creator *did* create with the sui generis, free will signal embedded in all creation and that it is *this free will and the creative energy it emits* that has been tortiously converted. Here in this system at the moment we are observing a group that has come in from the outside and, using the ‘will’ of a contractual ‘god’ that steals free will, have claimed that they ‘own’ everything they point at and they back this up with pieces of paper with fairy tales written on them- and guns.
Do the guns make the fairy tales *true* at any point? Do these individuals *actually own* what it is they have taken by force? Can these individuals actually steal anyone’s sui generis? Or can they only *hide* the knowledge of sui generis of ALL BEINGS and then go from there?
These are really simple progressions for me. Am I wrong in my perception that the ‘courts’ can only exercise their jurisdiction over an individual IF THE INDIVIDUAL AGREES THAT THEY CAN? In order to do this, is the law not created on the premise of ‘peer’ or superior authority? How can a totally unique, one of a kind Being have a PEER or SUPERIOR authority?
The ‘law’ *recognises* sui generis- I got it from the law codes, it’s a vital element of the copyright and commerce law system. It’s not something they made up, it’s something they’ve had to begrudgingly include because it’s part of the element of what they have stolen that they can’t get away from. They use the sui generis to convict individuals on the basis of their DNA and fingerprints, unique biological markers.
Is there a suggestion that ‘the law’ can have things both ways, that they can agree on one hand that yes, an individual is a sui generis, unique Being established by the unique DNA and other biological markers but no they are NOT a sui generis Being? Why would there need to be *any other discussion in a court* than this one- am I or am I not a sui generis, *without peer*, one of a kind Being? If they say ‘no you are not’ then it blows all their convictions in which they’ve relied on DNA and other biological marker evidence for conviction- if they say ‘yes you are’ then they have no jurisdiction.
Why are we agreeing to negotiate with them over their fictions? Their ORIGINAL fiction was that they could steal what is not, and can never be, theirs, issue an edict that says they’re now the king of the castle and we have to abide by this because they have guns. Are guns and force the only reason individuals don’t question the original fiction?
What happens if we go right to the heart of the fiction and simply tell them “I am a sui generis Being, without peer’? What happens if we cut right to the heart of the foundational fiction and simply keep putting that before them? I do not engage in the fiction because I constantly speak my sui generis Being and this is what will have to be dealt with before the fictions could have any other say- the sui generis is a door stopper to the millions of fictions that they try to point at individuals because those individuals don’t know who or what they really are. I do.
Can anyone demonstrate where what I have demonstrated would not be so in the law, given what the law already does with it?
I’m very interested to see what would happen should this approach be used in court. Or when you’re being pulled up by a police person. Did you search the forums of the common law folk to see if they’re onto the sui generis clause?
I am pretty sure that when someone internalizes the pattern of self-genesis that we’re talking about here, there will be little, if any, interaction with the “courts”.