Episode # 152 Ville's "40" AI Points

Identity & Civil Registration Law

1. Incorrect or fraudulent entries in population registers — potentially actionable as administrative error or malfeasance

2. Discrepancies between church registration records and civil population register entries — evidentiary inconsistency in official records

3. The registered "person" not corresponding to the actual biological individual — false representation in public records

4. Officials redacting information from personal records without lawful justification — unlawful withholding of personal data

Property & Ownership Law

5. Unauthorized appropriation of biological material (the placenta as a "limb or member") without consent — potential conversion or theft of bodily property

6. The state or hospital claiming ownership or custody of biological material belonging to the individual — unlawful possession

7. Intrinsic value extracted from the individual through the legal fiction without compensation or consent — unjust enrichment

Contract & Consent Law

8. Government forms using terms with hidden or dual meanings unknown to the signatory — vitiation of consent, potentially rendering contracts voidable

9. Individuals signing documents without knowing the legal interpretation the author intends — misrepresentation or non-disclosure

10. Rebuttable presumptions imposed on individuals without informed consent — constructive fraud

Administrative & Public Law

11. Officials being unable to clarify the meaning of terms on their own forms — failure of duty and potentially ultra vires action

12. Authorities refusing or obstructing access to personal records, then claiming records don't exist when they were merely relocated — obstruction and unlawful denial of access

13. Failure by authorities to correct known errors in official records despite legal obligation to do so — administrative negligence

14. Jurisdiction being altered through renaming of places without proper notice to affected individuals — unlawful change of jurisdictional status

Medical & Bodily Integrity Law

15. Cutting of the umbilical cord during C-section operations without informed consent for the legal consequences of that act — medical battery or lack of informed consent

16. Hospital staff filling in registration forms using terms with legal meanings unknown to the patient — misrepresentation in a medical/administrative context

17. Hospitals sending personal registration information to third parties without clear disclosure to the individual — breach of confidentiality and potentially data protection law

Trust & Fiduciary Law

18. Creation of a legal trust around the registered person without the individual's knowledge or consent — breach of fiduciary duty

19. The Ecclesiastical Deed Poll being characterized as a trap that reinforces rather than dissolves the trust — potential misrepresentation by those promoting it

20. Institutional actors managing the legal fiction for their own benefit at the expense of the individual — constructive trust and unjust enrichment

Constitutional & Human Rights Law

21. Individuals being subjected to a legal identity they did not choose and cannot easily exit — potential violation of the right to identity and self-determination

22. Jurisdictional authority being asserted over individuals without a valid legal basis — unlawful exercise of state power

23. The right to correct one's own public record being obstructed — violation of due process and right to accurate official representation

Note: All "40" AI points available upon request.

Montevideo Convention - http://www.hudok.info/files/1114/3526/0588/Evi-Doc_12_Montevideo.pdf

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:02

Hello. Finally.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Yeah, here we are. Here we are. How are you?

SPEAKER_03 0:12

I'm I'm I'm I'm better apparently than I was Tuesday when I didn't show up.

SPEAKER_00 0:20

Yeah, you know what was funny, the uh I listened to the call you had. And you mentioned in the beginning that somebody said somebody was hanging on the line for 13 minutes.

SPEAKER_02 0:34

It was you.

SPEAKER_03 0:38

But uh I figured I figured that out after I read that out after I realized um I had screwed up the days and or the the dates, I should say the dates. Um but here we are, we're good anyway. It doesn't matter.

SPEAKER_00 0:54

Yeah, yeah. No worries.

SPEAKER_03 0:57

So what what in the heck, man? I I saw that email or the email you sent me, and that is unbelievable. The amount of information that that you've put out there uh we're the world, um the truth, just by just by shining a light of uh the light of truth and and how much you have available to you, or I should say, all the opportunity to uh to undo a lot of the problems of the world. But um, you tell me that this is your this is your time, so I'm not gonna talk. If I don't have to. If I don't have to talk, Bill, I'm not gonna talk.

SPEAKER_00 1:36

No, I think this is it I it's uh I thought that we could spend some time on on the on the whole AI topic. Because, you know, obviously that's kind of like everybody's talking about it now, and there's a lot of controversy and a lot of misconceptions, and the whole the whole term to begin with is you know, we could we could do a call on that by itself. Um and and there's a lot of there's I've I've been very skeptical with the whole thing um from the beginning, but I've been experimenting with different uh AI tools now. And what's primarily for the reason that this topic is so vast, you have so much material that it's um I I feel that it's it's really difficult uh to um keep everything in everything organized because there's so much, the more you can see it's everywhere. The topic, the point itself, the the core of all of this uh that you've been doing and talking about, and that that that we all been researching, the core is very simple. Uh the the challenge is to communicate it in the terms that it's being uh communicated publicly, which is sort of a veiled form of it. And that that format makes it really uh text heavy. So all these statutes, all these books, all these concepts that are put out there, the uh symbolism, everything there. There's just it's just all over, as we know. Uh there's so much material in art, in literature, uh, all the all the legal texts. So I struggled with with with with that and I uh try started to keep um I I sort of I have a lot of local files, uh, and I've become pretty good at finding stuff online. Uh but then I've also been dumping a lot of this stuff uh on the Discord server. But the Discord, uh you know, it's just a bunch of reflections and comments and links and maybe some documents. So if you're not really following it, I I don't even know what it's like to follow it really, because I'd I'd be using it as my own sort of research notebook in a way. And and of course, it's a good platform for some discussions, good discussions we've had there. But basically, what I'm what I'm saying here is that this material, when you do this research, and probably know you have the PCloud archive. There's just so much stuff. So uh the challenge is how do you make it more reachable and easier to handle? Now we've we've been we've been basically doing the heavy lifting. You've been doing most of it, huge amount, but actually getting, finding that material and and and uh collecting it and having it somewhere. Um so what what what's positive about it now is that since it is there and we have all these let me use the word repositories of of no knowledge, um that that those because it's in in the form of format of text, or even if it's videos, it can be turned into um text and and and searchable documents. And then now these language models can actually pick up on that material, especially when you confine it, when you have sort of a given set of information which is particularly focused on this, and if you have some sort of um let's say const contextual information attached to it, like for example, on on the Discord server, there's a lot of I've been and other people as well, have been writing there um trying to explain the meaning of these findings. So usually when I post something there, if I find some good citations or some uh um statutes or some anything that that that we've been going through over the over the past five five, six years really. Uh I've been trying to when I post something, I write a little bit about it there, just so that it's like my interpretation, or how do I interpret the words, or which uh what we do a lot is like which uh which uh particular uh meaning of any term we would pick up from Merriam when we talk about some term. So it just to give it a little bit of context like that actually makes the in the the database a lot richer. So now when these tools developed here um over this or over the same time that we've been doing this, well what I I just did basically was I just uh you can take a dump like the data dump of the of the Discord server. You just basically take one file out of it and all the text is there.

SPEAKER_01 8:13

So I just did that.

SPEAKER_00 8:15

Um and then basically it's a bit it's a big text file or a number of files of everything that's been written and posted there. And then I put that in. I just tested it, I just put it in a in one of these AI uh models. And um and I can I can uh well let me get on my computer here. So I did a number of number of uh things with it. Maybe maybe we can maybe we can directly sort of people who haven't seen those. I posted this on the server when I did it, but but basically it's a good starting point. So I took all of that, and this is not nearly as much as you have on the P Cloud. So, like this one doesn't have all those actual case files, you have the hundreds of books you have there and all that. But this is just what I've been posted. There's a bunch of links. I have no idea how deep the um the AI model went down these sort of links that are included in that text. But if you think of the the the the the content that I put in there, it's basically a bunch of uh comments and uh posts and links, maybe some talks. And then it did it looked at that through the lens of a uh language model.

SPEAKER_03 10:10

So Bill, real quick, the the these 40 points, these 40 points that you sent in the email to me, is that AI generated?

SPEAKER_00 10:20

Yes. So so I I use so so I'm just giving the the background of how those came about. Okay. So so because the language model has to, and this was clawed AI. So the language model has to look at something, right? So and what I did was um because it the model knows how to deal with language, it it understands what words mean to an extent. I don't know how deeply, I don't know how much intelligence these models have uh in sort of selecting which potenti which is the most likely definition of a term used in a text. Well, how much can it sort of get from the context? You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_03 11:24

It's this is the nuance, yeah. Nuance.

SPEAKER_00 11:28

Yeah, and and and it doesn't necessarily have the the viewpoint of like where why why is it looking at this? What's the what's the point? Like, what am I trying to get from this information? We know because when we are looking at these text, we are looking, we're searching and finding these specific meanings and uh the link to the core question. Uh we're finding it really easily, and especially when we know how this thing works, you know that the links are there, and you're just searching and you're finding them. So you sort of know how which definitions to use to get to the truth of the matter. But I don't know if the language models have any idea about this, so you need to give it some experimenting now a little bit more, and I can talk more about it. I can see huge biases in this, uh, in the models, but we'll we'll come to that. But basically, basically, just to give an idea how this worked, so uh the the filter of the information from the from the raw data that is out there is basically that your work uh which is not as it is, you know, all the files that you've collected and all the notes, all that, it's not included obviously in this. But your work basically distilled the knowledge that I over these years put on the server. And now the server, because it's kind of my logbook of how I went through this knowledge, it has a lot of this context because I've been writing there almost like a journal, reflecting on these questions and sort of digging into these terms and statutes and books and citations and all that. So it has a lot of the context and it has a lot of the context from this perspective. So basically, that text that I have on the server gives uh I I I suspect that that gives a pretty good context for the language model to guide it. What am I looking for here? What am I looking at here? And what is what are the questions that I that I'm sort of um researching here. Um so I took the posts, all of the posts. I have no idea. It's probably like thousand pages altogether, maybe 1500 pages, A4 of text. Uh, and I put it on Claude, and I asked, asked it basically very simple question: identify legal issues that could be challenged in court in this material. And it speeded out basically pretty quickly because these are powerful models, so it didn't take many seconds basically, it just speeded out 27 points, and then I added another question asking it to consider not only sort of local or national legal issues, but also international law issues, and that's when it gave out the list of 40 uh concrete legal issues. And remember, the the question was that could be challenged in court. So um, before we get into those 40, the the huge controversy that we've been getting into here is that their own statutes and laws and treaties basically uh do not allow them to do what they are doing. So the Palermo Protocols is a beautiful example of that. And you talked about it uh often and and and also in the latest call. So basically, they have their own books out there, all treaties that they've signed, and their um even constitutions, um treaties promising um people's right to self-determination, everything. But then in reality, all they do is try and trick people not to see that those rules apply to them exactly the same way as to all of us. So they're trying to tweak the interpretation, first of all, tweak the context so that people don't know how those rules apply, and then monopolize the interpretation of it so that they are supposedly the only ones who can say what those words were intended to mean.

SPEAKER_01 17:23

Now that's that's a big problem.

SPEAKER_00 17:26

Um if you can see um and as we've been discussing that that this is it's all basically rhetoric. So it the reality hasn't changed in any way.

SPEAKER_01 17:44

This is uh the it's all rhetoric, and it's that rhetoric used to allow these legal concepts to take over, starting from assumed abdication of a monarch right on the birthday, which creates basically the the opportunity or possibility for the uh assumed regency to arise, or the or the assumed trust structure to arise.

SPEAKER_00 18:30

So um looking at this, you sort of have to keep uh these parallel thoughts that you you have the reality, the physical reality, the biological reality that doesn't change. It doesn't change at all, it hasn't changed ever.

SPEAKER_01 18:52

Uh, it is what it is all the time.

SPEAKER_00 18:56

But then through words and terms and rhetoric, people get pulled into this uh mental concept world where all kinds of other claims start uh becoming alive, and if if they cannot make the connection to the reality, then those terms and mental concepts take over, and they start then defining how people uh behave or how people are treated. Now, even so, okay, so uh that was a small detour, but basically I can just I can just I can just get back to these 40 40 points.

SPEAKER_03 19:51

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Vil, just hang on a second. Everything you just said, while you're while you're saying that all of this is possible, it it it the one thing that caught my attention early on was you said that it doesn't apply to them. It that whatever they're doing to everyone else doesn't apply to them, whoever they are. Here's what's interesting about that. When I look at Crudent versus Neil, 1796, and it says every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. That right there is is I I'm kind of hanging on that for everything. Here's why. Because nature begins at fertilization, not conception, and and and all of their laws begins at conception. Everything is built on conception. So if the only ones that are outside or extraterritorial, the only ones that are outside of all the laws made by men or man are the ones that are aligned with their true origin, fertilization, then it would make sense. Cruden vs. Neil says every man is independent of all laws. Done. Not most, not some, all, except those prescribed by nature. So I'm looking at that prescription. It's a prescription, it says it right there in the statement, but it's pre it's it's a prescription of nature. So if you if you're in alignment with nature, which evidences your monozygotic maritime monarchy at the zygote, at the waterborne level, and you can and you stay there. You stay within the laws of nature, and nature's God. You don't ever come off of that, no matter how much they yell and scream, you stay with that truth because it is the truth.

unknown 21:59

Then all

SPEAKER_03 22:00

All the laws they make up, all the treaties that have been made, everything that's ever happened to try to capture the mind of man is off the table. I mean everything. There isn't anything that can capture you if you know that you're all present and accounted for from fertilization to last breath. So all of the stuff, all of the details, all of the writings, all of the rules, regulations, laws, statutes, codes, everything they're writing is for everyone not in alignment with nature. That's it. That's how I'm seeing this. It's all or nothing. You're either completely exempt from everything, or everything applies to you at some moment, at some given moment. Everything. Everything they made up will apply at some point. You can't escape it. You cannot escape it unless you've never admitted to it, or you don't admit to it, which is nature. Nature is extraterritorial. It's beyond all jurisdictions of men. Done. That's how I see it. So anyway, that's it. That's how I see it.

SPEAKER_00 23:05

Yeah, that's how it and you see and and you talked about it in the last call with Linda, that it's really difficult. You talked about consent. So the the the problem with that consent and withdrawing the consent is that what they use is the emergency doctrine, which you also wrote down really good in the last call. Um, they use that all the time, but they also use implied consent, which is basically uh assuming consent from the conduct, not necessarily from the words, from the conduct. So they can even claim that you your conduct implied consent when you say that you don't consent. Um so they have all these tricks there. And it it's really uh which which really makes the this system um of slavery I just call it slavery.

SPEAKER_01 24:20

Um makes the system um it sort of reveals that this system is being used selectively.

SPEAKER_00 24:36

So and this is what pisses me off, basically, because I agree, I agree. And when someone figures out that wait a minute, it's it's the uh you know, you have to be in line with the nature, and everything else is rhetoric, uh, if they don't respect that at that point, that's when they step over the line. And that's that's sort of what I'm what I'm where I think this is this is getting really nasty because the system is very complicated, but it still has rules and it still works as apparently as intended. But if someone someone sees and knows how it works, and um encounters like I have total bullshit arguments or just denial, like basically inability to even discuss this with any any anyone. People refuse to answer the questions. That's when it becomes selectively applied system, and that's when it's not okay. So basically, they are breaking their breaking this their own rules. And that's what I was kind of after when I was asking these questions. Because we have this massive material now, and we're looking at, okay, so let's take a step back and let's look at what their law books say, and how these questions that we've been uh discussing and researching, how do they um how do they fit into their own legal system given this context?

SPEAKER_03 26:42

You you you're you're basically saying who will guard the guards.

SPEAKER_01 26:49

Yeah. So I mean what I'm what I'm saying.

unknown 26:53

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 26:54

Okay, so so what I mean.

SPEAKER_01 26:55

That's what I'm thinking, right?

SPEAKER_00 26:57

Yeah, yeah. Well well, it's that or I what I think happened when I posted that question uh was that obviously the the the the AI it can do a lot more like raw research a lot quicker than than anyone you know on their own. So it can just take a look at all these legal statutes, it finds finds them online, and it can just fly through them in in seconds, look at the words, look at the text, and then basically combine these two things and look at those texts from the perspective of what our discussion has been, or what I've been and all of us have been posting on the on the on the Discord. So now it has context on what to look for in those statues. And because what basically that gave to the analysis was the right questions to ask. It basically gave it the context of wait a minute, if we know how this works, meaning that they misrepresent uh nature in their original population register and the the breeder documents. And if that then, as it as it does, creates a new set of assumed rights for the registered persons, then how do these look? Uh how do these statutes look when someone knows that that's incorrect?

SPEAKER_01 29:07

When you know that those papers don't give, don't reflect the reality.

SPEAKER_00 29:16

Now, of course, you can read those statutes with many different glasses on, but now I put these glasses on the AI model, and it points out 40. Well, let's just go through this 40 because I think that gives a good uh view.

SPEAKER_01 29:35

I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna try and make this a bit shorter than what the answer really was, but basically it grouped this by um topic, and then just gave a list of um, as I asked, legal issues that could be challenged in court.

SPEAKER_00 30:00

So in terms in terms of identity and civil registration laws, this is incorrect or fraudulent entries into the register, which is basically you know, it's it ever every now keep in mind every country you we probably you have listeners from, I don't know what you say, hundred countries, uh last time. So so so so basically every country has these statutes, and as we've looked, when we've looked at this, they are all compatible, they have to be, because all of these regencies are set up the same way. So basically, what this means is that these issues are in all of the law books. It doesn't make any difference if you're in a different country, it's just a different language and they use slightly different terminology, but the underlying concepts are exactly the same. So, yeah, so it's in incorrect or fraudulent entries, basically misrepresentation. There are discrepancies between the church registration records and the population records, that's inconsistency in the records.

SPEAKER_01 31:24

Um the register person is not corresponding to the actual biological individual, that's false representation.

SPEAKER_00 31:34

Um the officials are redacting information without lawful justification, that's unlawful withholding of personal data. So, you know, because I I mean for for I think that relates to to my question when I've been asking them to, you know, um disclose where did they how did they even get that data? Because remember when I was emailing with them, how did you even get this data? Like the church officials, how did you get this information? Where did you get it from? Because you get didn't get it from my parents. And they they they failed to answer those questions. They just got it from somewhere. Right. So so they are they are immediately uh and with my correspondence with basically all of these, all of these uh uh uh regency officials, they never answer the questions and they never want to say, they never want to identify anyone, any living uh being who is occupying those regency uh offices or or identify the officials who make make these decisions. So they don't want to give any names. Why? Because they know that the liability, these liabilities are attached to whoever actually made those decisions. The best example there is when I was chasing on who approved the terminology that is being used on the uh uh the form that is used when they file the and when they create the certificate of live birth. So I was trying to chase who drafted this form. There had there has to be a meeting where someone suggests that let's use these terms and let's use this kind of a form. Let's let's use this form where the placenta is treated separately from the baby, and let's put a different um time of birth on the placenta than we put on the the baby. Some they they have to have this discussion because the form is designed like that. So who designed the form? And who there has there has to have been a meeting where someone approved, like some committee or some chief of department approved. Yeah, okay, this is this is the form, let's use this. And and that's that's the moment where the liability attaches to that person who made that that that decision, or the the whole committee, if it was a group of people. So they never they never answered me that question. I had I I got nowhere with those those uh inquiries. Um they couldn't even say who who drafted it, when it was approved, who approved it, which department approved it, was the Department of Justice involved, or was it only the Department of Health? I got nowhere. The only thing that happened was that the Department of Health um director quit.

SPEAKER_03 35:19

Nothing unusual there.

SPEAKER_00 35:26

Yeah, exactly. So so it was really weird, but but okay, that that's the point. So it's just as a concrete example of why these were surprisingly good. So now basically, where would we okay? So then it gives the next section is property and ownership law, unauthorized appropriation of biological material, obviously the placenta. Um potential theft of bodily property. Bodily property, okay, it's a debatable concept, but it's just I like the way how straightforward this answer was, because that's basically what it is. Um, this the hospital claiming ownership or custody of biological material not belonging to them, that's unlawful possession. Um, intrinsic value extracted from the individual through the legal fiction without compensation. So that's unjust enrichment. So basically, they take it, they don't tell you that they have it, because they are potentially assuming that you would have to know that they took it and it has some value before they have the duty to tell you that yeah, we actually took it and we put it in a trust, and we're administering that trust under a regency. So, what they're saying is okay, silence is acquiescence. This guy doesn't know, they don't ask, so we don't need to answer. And that's a total bullshit approach. That's in fact um misleading, um, lying by omission, and unjust enrichment. Okay, let's go forward. Contract and consent law, uh we're only at number eight now. Um government using terms with hidden or dual meanings unknown to the signatory. That's litiation of consent, potentially rendering contracts avoidable. Well, exactly. Well, they have the contract.

SPEAKER_01 37:47

If you look at the whole consent as okay, as the as as the as the cornerstone of the social contract, uh the Palermo Protocol makes it void. You you cannot assume a social contract if the assumption relies on organ harvesting.

SPEAKER_00 38:27

Okay, it's like if you if you say it like that, you you no one can defend that position. So so they just we can just trace it back to that. Look, the this it the register is.

SPEAKER_03 38:45

You know that the or the the deposition or the deposit of that material that gave rise to some record. Here's what's interesting is now, and and and this is this is just something I was thinking about the other day is that that DNA deposit on whatever grounds becomes data or information or data um on a bank or in a bank account. So it's a data bank. And what's really interesting about the fact that we're speaking about this AI product is that I'm gonna I'm really just so you know, I'm focusing on the idea of cybercrime. Because that's where this whole thing is emanating from now is from the data bank, the data, your 46 chromosome kingdom, that is is looked at as a deposition or a voluntary deposit into a bank, a minor bank account. That's that's how I'm looking at this now. I'm looking at any access, any access to my pri personal and private matter, which I say do not follow for a reason. I'm saying that any access to it at all is a cybercrime.

SPEAKER_00 40:15

Yeah, that's that's an interesting, interesting, yeah, great, great way to look at it. It's it's a hack. It's a hack.

SPEAKER_03 40:26

It's a hack. They've hacked, they hacked your monarchy, and everything, all these points that I'm looking at that AI spit out with all of your work, it all leads back to that same thing. It all leads back to a hack. The hack is like an axe hacking into the limb of a tree. It hacked, it hacked the limb, it hacked it off. And and you've been separated from your family tree, and all your family tree money has gone into a trust account where it didn't belong in the first place.

SPEAKER_01 40:58

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 40:59

Great, it's a great way to put it. It's a hack. It's a hack. Oh my god. Anyway, I'm sorry, keep going.

SPEAKER_00 41:09

Yeah, so then uh okay, I'm just trying to be fast with this because I have so many other other uh points to make later, but then okay, signing, but you you people are signing documents without knowing the legal interpretation or the intended legal um consequence of them. That's mean misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Um rebuttable presumptions imposed on individuals without informed consent. That's constructive fraud. Okay, then administrative and public law, officials are being unable to clarify the meaning of terms on their form, that's a failure of duty. And and it's an ultra-virus action. I pointed out both both of these right from the beginning. I've been saying to them, you have the duty, not me.

SPEAKER_01 42:08

They are bound by duty, not me.

SPEAKER_00 42:12

And that duty finds, if they even have the duty, since the regency uh creates only assumed authority. So if if that incorrect assumption is even capable of creating authority for them relative to me, which I don't think it is, but if it was, especially since they're acting in that capacity as if it did, then they are duty bound, not me.

SPEAKER_03 42:55

The claimant has the burden of proof.

SPEAKER_00 43:00

Yeah, and and they don't even some of them don't even realize that they are making a claim. But that doesn't matter. They have the duty to know what they're doing since they assume those offices. They uh that that those are those those of their offices have fiduciary duty. I don't have that duty. Um so authorities are refusing or obstructing access to personal records. They refused to send me this. They they were fighting not to send me the breeder documents. But luckily, I don't I asked for the breeder documents as the first batch of documents I asked. They didn't even realize what I was going after, and they sent them. And then when I started asking questions about them, they got they got totally freaked out. Okay. Um They claim they're claiming the records don't exist when they are actually just relocated or or or transferred to somewhere else. So that's obstruction and unlawful denial of access. Th these are all legal terms. These are all basically points that can be raised against them.

SPEAKER_01 44:24

But but if you don't know that they are not disclosing some information, then it's really hard to raise that issue.

SPEAKER_00 44:36

Or even discuss it. Or let's take it even further, if they don't even know that they are withholding information, which in some cases is the reality. You ask something and they're like, no, we're not. And I had to walk some of these people through this process saying that you cannot have on the population information system information about me appearing out of nowhere. The information that you have on the population information system came from somewhere. They didn't even get that. They just so where did it come from? In what format did it come from? Is it a paper? Was it a database entry? Was there some kind of an API? Where did it come from? And who created that information? Was there someone typing on some computer? Was there someone filling out a form? Who signed the form? And who created the template for the form? Who chose those terms that are misleading and misrepresentation? Who made that decision? All of these questions, they just they just failed. Because they, you know, most of them didn't even think about it. And the ones who do think about this know that those questions attach the liability to them, not to me. And that's why they freak out all the time. And that's when they got nasty with me. Okay, um, the failure to correct known errors in the records. I pointed out the I even send them like I send them corrections.

SPEAKER_01 46:27

Like if you if you want to keep a record and suggest that it reflects my um capacity and rights, then that record needs to be accurate.

SPEAKER_00 46:45

So I send them a list of corrections. And and they said um they said that they they have to get it from another one of their regency officials, not from me directly, which which is a total oxymoron because you have the right to correct the record. Everyone has the right to correct misinformation about themselves on on public records, but they refuse to correct it. Because correcting it would collapse their regency assumption.

SPEAKER_03 47:22

Yeah, and and let me let me jump in on that. The definition I use for record is you go to record at Merriam Webster, go down to 3B2, and it says an unsurpassed statistic. And just like you said, subject to Regency. It's because Regency itself, I'm gonna go to Regency real quick, or regen, yeah, regency, um, because you pointed that out years ago. I'm going to Regency at Webster's, and that minor account, that infant record is subject to regency, and of course, your your entire kingdom is now subject to regency through that. But look what the definition of regency says. It says the office, jurisdiction, or government of a regent or body of regents, um, a body of regents, the period of rule of a regent or body of regents, but now I'm going to go to the word regent real quick. And it says a person who governs a kingdom in the minority, absence or disability of the sovereign. That's how they capture everybody. That's how they capture everybody's property, uh, Bill, is that they create this minor account that never moves beyond infancy, which is why it's an unsurpassed statistic. And so now everybody in the world is considered a legal infant with no capacity to speak for themselves, except through the bar administration or the the bar. And and that's how they got it. We can never speak for ourselves because the record implies infancy only, subject to regency or a regent. Um, so anyway, I just wanted to jump in on that because that's basically what you're saying is that the record doesn't reflect me as a 65-year-old man with maturity or majority. It only shows an infant subject to regency ultimately.

SPEAKER_00 49:22

Yeah, and subject to regency because it presumes abdication. It presumes that I have willingly, knowingly abdicated my true status, which I have not done. But they have and their problem is that they have to have that assumption in place, because if there is not that assumption, what happens to the regency when the monarch is present or is not minor anymore? It the it not the see, there's there's not even a mechanism, it's like on and off. Once the guy is there, the regency vanishes automatically.

SPEAKER_03 50:20

So thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Thy kingdom come. There it is.

SPEAKER_00 50:29

That's it. There is no process that people need to go through. Once you're present, the regency doesn't exist anymore. So the entire conversation becomes very difficult for them. They are hanging on to that. Um which now we're showing is ultimately uh not only misleading or neg negligence, but also uh outright criminal.

SPEAKER_01 51:07

Because it's trafficking. It's trafficking.

SPEAKER_00 51:11

Um where was I? Sorry about that. Yeah, so then no, I'm all over the place with this list now. Uh just we're somewhere around 15 now. Jurisdiction being altered through renaming of places without proper notice. Um, yeah, unlawful change of jurisdiction or uh status, medical, bodily integrity law, cutting down political cord. Um that's medical battery and lack of informed consent. Of course, they hide behind the emergency doctrine there, as they did specifically with me.

SPEAKER_01 51:49

So they they they they um retroactively said that there was a medical emergency.

SPEAKER_00 52:07

But but the but they but but the the C section operation uh record that the the physician who did it he actually wrote in that record that um he cut um open my mom's belly, he took out the baby with the placenta, everything was fine, and then he proceeded to stitch up my mom, and then he cut the cord.

SPEAKER_01 52:50

He cut the cord, he just decided to do it. Everything was fine, ten points, you know, ten points on the scale when they raped the baby in terms of color and whatever.

SPEAKER_00 53:07

Ten points. But he still, without trying to even take anyone's consent, he proceeded to cut the cord and he wrote it in that sequence. What the hell?

SPEAKER_03 53:21

Now now to be to be clear, Vill, um, you're speaking of what most people would would understand a C section or caesarean section to be. But but if you go to etymology online, the cesarean section isn't necessarily cutting open anyone, it's actually just cutting. So when they clamp and cut the umbilical cord, um the word it it at its core, at its root, is just to cut. So when they clamp and cut or cross-cut, it's a it's a C-section, it's a cross-section of the umbilical cord, um, that's a C-section. That's a Caesarean section that gives rise to the human creature in Unum Sangu. So now they have this human creature, Caesar's claim, Caesar's section, which is your godly origin, that is subject to the Roman pontiff, according to his story.

SPEAKER_00 54:14

That's a great point because they are obfuscating what the cut actually is. There's two cuts. One is mom's belly, and the other one is the cord. And they're just saying, yeah, this person was born born by C-section. Well, the obviously that's they're talking about the umbilical cord cut and the registered person.

SPEAKER_03 54:39

The born alive product of conception, yes.

SPEAKER_00 54:44

It's it's it's so subtle. Um, but when you look at how this guy describes the reality of what happened, he's actually documenting the fraud.

SPEAKER_01 55:00

He's documenting the origin origin of how that um how they had to create the circumstances to fill those forms in the way that would then later on allow the misconception to happen. So it it's actually proof of this being intentional.

SPEAKER_00 55:45

The I think the biggest proof of this being intentional is the way the hospital forms and the population information system breeder document forms are designed. Because they are specifically designed to reflect the cut and to reflect and to use terminology which then allows the regency to arise. And that decision to use those formats and those forms was made somewhere where they knew exactly what that's gonna legally result in. It's going to result in misconception, which leads to assumed regency, which means basically ripping people off of their rights or modifying the rights so that people can be subjugated to the regency.

SPEAKER_03 56:47

Mortifying, mortifying through memorial through a memorial document that that again only evidences what used to be and what is not currently true. Again, it's all fiction, but we just we've got to be careful that what happens, what I've found, Bill, is that people speak all this into reality. They're the ones, we are the ones, I should say we um across the board, we admit to this stuff. We say, well, the word person means this, and the and and this is this, and this is this, and we we start making these claims, which are not true. We're the ones doing it. Ultimately, they're just waiting for us to tell them um our crimes. That's they're just waiting for us to state the crime, and then they have everything in place to punish us. It's already there. I mean, they've been working at it for thousands of years, but the yeah, that's what's so funny about this is that everything we talk about, all of these points that that you have here, they're us agreeing to that the the rules of a game that don't actually apply in reality. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 58:05

And that I always keep on coming, you so so it comes back to the um concentration error. That's a maxim, maximum of law. That basically if if you have an error on a document, and both all the parties that are affected by that document, if they all do not mind about the error, then it removes the error. The error becomes irrelevant, or basically there is no uh it can be treated as non non-error. So that's what they use here. Is it because people don't know, they can't point it out, so they assume consent and consent removes the error. They know it's wrong, they know the placenta is not separate, they know that's proof of regency, but because you're not pointing it out, their paperwork is designed specifically like that, and if you don't spot it, if you don't bring it up, then it applies.

SPEAKER_01 59:27

It's a regency, then. Obviously, you don't know who you are.

SPEAKER_03 59:33

Uh which is in which which which which actually evidences it because again, infancy is is an incapacity. If you can't if you can't figure this stuff out, if you can't tell that you're being treated this way when it actually you're that, you're the monarch, you you deserve to be treated this way. You are insane. You are you have uh the inability to see truth. They're getting again. I can't say this enough is that I don't know anybody, Bill. I mean, in in the 17 years plus I've been at this crap, very few people. I mean, I might say something and they go, yeah, yeah, yeah, but do they really see it for themselves? I know you do, but I mean, there's very few of us that actually see what's going on to the level of reality. You know, when somebody tells me that that, Kurt, that's your reality, I already know that there's no conversation possible between me and somebody that says, Well, your reality is different than my reality. No, it's not. There's only one reality. I mean, it applies to all of us. What tell me, tell me right now, before before we go any further, tell me exactly what time it is where you're located, according to the system.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:47

What time is it? You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_03 1:00:58

Give me a time. Yeah, I mean, see, the point is that for you and I in reality, it's the present moment. But see, I'm looking at a clock on the computer that says 10 01 a.m. on Thursday, according to their system, their their father time, their Kronos. Um, but that's not reality. Reality is that you and I are speaking at this moment in real time, and and there's no we're not going to argue about that. Tell me what the weather's like looking out your window right now. I mean, what if if you're telling me it's snowing, if you're telling me, Kurt, it's snowing out right now, and I say, no, it's not, Bill, it's it's sunny. See, they're both true because reality is it is what it is. It's snowing for you, not for me. Um, it it's 30 degrees for me and and whatever it is for you. But they're both true because it's all true. It's just from our perspective, from our experience where we are located on Mother Earth, we're we're seeing something different. Even though so listen, even if I wasn't speaking to you right now, whatever's happening out your window would be happening anyway. Whether I know it or not, whether whether I know it or not, whether I have a witness to it, whether I have a witness to it or not, it's still happening. I don't have to know it's happening in order for it to be true.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:23

Exactly. I love the I love the the term real time. Something's happening in real time.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:35

Well, real is royal, yeah, in royal time, I guess.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:40

Yeah. Uh well and and and the other the other the other one is fake time. Because it's just, you know, invention for measuring or the mean, yeah, the meantime.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:52

The mean M-E-A-N, the mean time, by the way, is everything in between. It's the middle. Well, what's the middle between alpha and omega? What's the middle between origin, the beginning, and the end? That's called the mean time. And what they did is they constructed through the civil law, civil, civil calendar character, they constructed the mean time. So everything between alpha and omega, they're saying that they have jurisdiction over the meantime. If you look up civil, somewhere around number five or six, it'll say the the the uh the civil time in time, and it there's they're speaking specifically about the civil clock or the civil position, which is the mean sun. And that it's all artificial. So the mean time is based upon an artificial calendar, artificial division of of moments, that they're saying that they have the ability to freeze frame and say, well, back on uh uh March 19th, 2026, you said this. Well, well, I've never been there. I've never been into fiction, but you're saying that the fictional character is subject to the laws or rule book that you guys have created. Well, Pruden vs. Neil says every man's independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. And I don't know a single squirrel or tree outside my front window that is subjected to the jurisdiction of man, other than you know, the the burning of forests and and the the the the the defoliants that are sprayed over above. They're not really affected by the jurisdiction of the court system because nature's not within the jurisdiction of man.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:43

Well, that's true. The way they apply that to international law, uh I'm jumping back to the uh to the to the infant infancy or the regency assumption, is that one of the one of the criteria for statehood is the ability to um to have or conduct international relations. Meaning that that you you uh you're capable of basically basically what it means is you you know what you're talking about and you're capable of talking about it.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:26

So you you you you are you have the capacity to govern.

SPEAKER_00 1:05:34

They call it that you have the capacity to govern the the state. So basically the government needs that capacity before it can be recognized. Well, of course it doesn't require recognition, but still they can say that well, if you don't even know that you're head of state, then obviously you're not.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:02

Well three three things real quick.

SPEAKER_03 1:06:06

Well, the head of state, um number one is internationally, when they clamp and cut the cord and they carry away your true your we'll call it your godly origin or the the earliest version of your kingdom, um, that part that they cut off of you is known as just cogents. J-U-S space, C-O-G-E-N-S, just cogents. That just cogents measure is considered your um first estate uh benefit of clergy, legal um person, which also gives you the ability to self-govern in their world, not in reality, but in their world. And and in their world, it's basically biblical. And so Isaiah 9.6 at King James is is how they apply that. They're saying that this benefit of clergy, now known as a legal fiction, is is called Isaiah 9.6 in their Bible, and it says, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace. So they're saying that as long as you're able to um manage or or use this character, in other words, the birth certificated character, which is a legal fiction, which is also known as the statutory person, that as long as you can handle that statute um within the civil law, then you're considered the government over that state, over that state. And of course, that state at this point is the state that has been cut off of you or removed from you and placed in the fictional realm. So they created a character that allows you to work that state, but remember that the separation of church and state is for public land only. And and that's the point, is they created a character that that is able to work with that state in the public, but you have to know how to use it. In reality, Bill, there is no separation. Private property doesn't isn't subjected to separation of church and state. And if my personality is whole, W-H-O-L-E, from fertilization and last breath, then the entirety of my estate or God's my my godly kingdom, let's say, um, is not subject to separation of church and state. I don't need a fit a legal fiction to rule over the entirety from fertilization and last breath. They created that thing that allows me to manage a piece of, we'll call it fiction, but there is no fiction to manage. If I'm whole from fertilization and last breath, in the present only from fertilization and last breath, then there's no reason for me to go back in time or go back into the historical record, which is a fiction. I don't need to traverse or or or or cross over between reality and fiction. I don't need a go-between, I don't need a middleman, I don't need anything they created because I'm still here. I'm still here. And and and what I owned at the beginning, I own right now because it's all about ownership rather than trust law. I don't need a trust when I'm the owner from the beginning. From the beginning, uh ab ovo. From the beginning, I am the owner. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:09:53

Just uh on the trust and fiduciary law um sections here in this list. And basically, what caught my attention here is is that so it's they if they create that trust structure, um, it's basically constructive trust, which they then use for unjust enrichment. But even the fact that there clearly has to be this fiduciary relationship for the regency to arise, and so there has to be that someone has to have that fiduciary duty, someone, some official has to be the regent, and that regent is actually in breach of the duty because they are not going out there and telling the monarch to get a grip, you know. Get real and start governing yourself. I don't want I I don't need to deal with this shit. You have to grow up, right? Start governing yourself.

SPEAKER_01 1:11:19

They're not saying that, they're in fact trying to hide that and claim that you're not capable because they love the fact that they are in that position through misrepresentation and nobody notices.

SPEAKER_00 1:11:41

So basically, instead of trying to deceive everybody everyone, their duty should be to try and get people to live according to natural law. Think about these things, think about yourself, think about your relationship with other people, think about other people's rights relative to yours when everyone is above. So right, so that's that's the that's the most blatant um breach of the of the fiduciary duty. And the fact is that there has to be a breach of the duty because there has to be that duty, there has to be some kind of a structure by which they um uh get a hold of the the uh sovereign um rights. So basically, what's happening is that they they they have to package those, they have to get the separate the rights from the the true sovereign. And that's why this artificial structure is put in place so that they can assume that those rights have been abandoned and put under the administration of the regents, whoever they are. But if you have um the actual situation for which the regency uh system was created, as it says in the definition of it, it's to manage it while the monarch is traveling or somewhere else. You've said it many times. When you go traveling, you give the keys to your house to someone else, and then when you come back, you know, thank you.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:42

I'm back.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:46

So that's what they failed to do, um, because they fell in love with this um deception. So basically, I don't know if we're even gonna get through this list. Um, but let me just try and speed up here a little bit. Um yeah, so it's a potential violation of the right to uh right to it identity and right to self-determination. Now I don't know, maybe we can maybe we can sort of keep this this list um on the side here, uh this list of 40 questions, but let me jump take a little detour here because I had another, I wanted to, I wanted to sort of touch this other um interactions that I had with with with the AI. So one of these um, because this this referred to the the right to st to self-determination. So another thing I did was really um was really simple. Let me try and find it. This one was on Grok, the X um AI. So I started this. This is a long conversation, but I tried to keep my questions sort of very very concise. I just wanted to see how what how it replies. So I said, I started by just asking who can set up a tribunal? And then it gave this list, yeah, like yeah, yeah, yeah, government, international organizations, courts, private uh you know, arbitration bodies. And then I asked, can people agree to set up private arbitrate arbitration tribunals? Uh yes, people can agree to set up private arbitration tribunals. So what I'm chasing here in the background is that if you look at your true capacity and the statehood that comes with it, obviously you are the court and you don't even have to set it up because the court follows you. It's an you can find it on Wikipedia, it's it's itinerant court. So basically it's it it explains how the court follows the monarch, even when the monarch is might be, you know, even in a somewhere completely different place, physically. So um so you know it's the definition of court on black slaw. Um I'm I'm kind of chasing that, but very carefully here. So can people, and I'm using people specifically, can people agree to set up private arbitration tribunals? Yeah, people can set up, yeah. This is um, and then the the the tribunal can be agreement-based. So basically, people can agree, and by the way, all courts, even the uh international established, you know, UN established under UN charters, so they are based on consent. So basically the parties to those tribunals or courts uh explicitly have to accept the jurisdiction of the court in order for that court to have jurisdiction. So um it those are also agreement-based, and that's um that links directly to our discussion. I think we talked about it last time, um, where uh there's this uh black's law definition where it says that the fiction is specifically created to uh give court jurisdiction. So when you turn that around, it means that if you don't consent or agree to the jurisdiction of someone else's court or court established under an assumed authority of a regency, then it doesn't have jurisdiction. But basically, okay, it says, yeah, people can agree to set up arbitration, it can be agreement-based, it can be ad hoc, uh, it's legally binding, and it just has to be consensual and specific to the dispute's scope. So if you have some question that you need to settle, you can the parties can agree to set up their own arbitration. Um, so then I asked, well, can people set up courts the same way? Because I asked first, can people set up private arbitration? Can people set up courts? And then it says, interestingly, no, people cannot set up courts the same way. Well, you know, when when it says the same way, it starts to sort of drift to uh floppy definitions here. Courts are formal jurisdiction uh judicial institutions created and regulated by governments under legal framework, da-da-da. And then it gives this long uh explanation and the difference. Courts are public institutions and state-backed authority while arbitration tribunals are private consensual limited scope. Okay, well then I ask, can people set up new countries based on people's right to self-determination? Um so I'm sticking to the people's rights, and obviously, under the right of self-determination, the AI has no other option than to reply, yes, people can set up new countries because that's what happens all the time. It happened all the time, by the way, anyways, because people existed before this um legal structure to called countries. Um, Thomas Paine has really great um writings about that. That by definition, people existed before um legal construct governments, and people wrote the constitutions that they go by this artificial government, not natural government government. So can people set a country? Yeah, people can, okay, and then it gives like yadi yadi yah on you know what on the on the requirements of that. So then I get back and say, so since people can set up new countries, so they can set up new courts, right? Because it's just said that people cannot set up courts. Well, then it's about the struggle. It's like, yeah, not quite. Well, people can attempt to set up countries based on self-determination, establishing courts is a distinct issue tied to the sovereignty and legal authority, so this, you know, and then it starts to sort of explain this. Courts require sovereign authority, self-determination, you know, doesn't necessarily mean that if it's not recognized, the da-da-da-da-da. So then I was starting to get a bit pissed off because these replies got so like fluffy. So I said, you keep on pointing to recognition of a new state, but the Montevideo Convention clearly states that sovereignty doesn't require recognition. And logically, it would not be sovereignty if it did, right? And then it says, You're absolutely correct. It doesn't.

SPEAKER_03 1:22:06

Yeah, but let me let me jump in on that. Bill, uh here here let me jump just jump in on this.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:12

When when I when I hear people or see people writing and asking permission, that negates any potential sovereignty.

SPEAKER_03 1:22:27

If you're asking permission for something, it it it implies non-sovereignty. So your own actions are negating your plea of sovereignty. You can't ask for permission and then pretend you have sovereign authority. You don't.

SPEAKER_00 1:22:48

Yeah, it's well let me let me let me jump in there because because you said it very well, because you said it implies lack of sovereignty, and that's how they use it. But you can argue back saying, because they try to use that interpretation in every possible way, but you can say, yeah, but that's not the intended meaning. I was just being kind or it was courtesy. Right? So see, because I don't intend that, I was just being nice. Um and that's that's I think that sort of captures the nuance there, because they try to take whatever you do and say as an implication, or they say that can be interpreted as this. And yeah, because they have a huge incentive to interpret it like that. But whatever but it doesn't change the reality, so you can always come back and say that was not the intended meaning. Because I used the words. I it was my conduct you're talking about, and I never had that intention of abdicating my sovereignty.

SPEAKER_03 1:24:10

Right. My story is not his story.

SPEAKER_00 1:24:14

Yeah. So but I I love that because it's that's exactly how they play the game. A lot of people don't realize it, and and by the way, so let me just jump back to this um back and forth I had with Grock AI, because when I pointed out the Montevideo Convention, it lists it itself here, it defines the state as having four things: permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. Now, uh, interestingly, if you people read that Montevideo Convention and the linked other legal analysis of it, there is no number on the permanent population because there cannot be.

SPEAKER_01 1:25:15

So it includes one.

SPEAKER_00 1:25:18

The defined territory, the only definition if you dig deep into what's required, is that the territory is natural. So in legal cases where someone says that something artificial is their sovereign territory, that doesn't hold in law. It has to be natural territory.

SPEAKER_01 1:25:53

Now obviously the maternal placenta is that. But you cannot say that a car is that. Um, well and here's the thing.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:10

What what what Bill, what are those four things again? That what are the four things?

SPEAKER_00 1:26:16

Permanent population, defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:26

Okay, so here I am. Here I am. When my kingdom comes from the heavens in lands into the uterine wall, I have I have there's just one of me. It's just one. The land, the land or the ground underneath my where where I've come to earth, let's say, that accretion is the land. It's it's the promised land, for crying out loud, which I have a right of way over, naturally. The defined territory. It's a defined territory. They're calling it um an insular possession at this point, uh, an island territory. So you got my my biology on this ground, which once it's cut off from mother, it becomes an island or an insular possession of the United States in my in my situation. But it's an island territory. And then you have what? The ability to what?

SPEAKER_00 1:27:24

No, the uh the third one the third one is government.

SPEAKER_03 1:27:29

So here I am with with the brain on these shoulders, and if it was not severed from me through the cutting, the clamping and cutting of the umbilical cord, all of that would have been under this this government, the one in my head right now. Instead, what they did is they clamped and cut, they separated it, so now it's not under this government, at least in their world, and yet here it is. It still is, it's all one. So my mind still governs that land, that ground through memory. Mind and memory. And then finally, the ability to enter into what? Relations.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:06

Yeah, the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:21

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:21

And this is let me give you another visual of that, which is actually the way I broke this down when I first came to research the Montevideo Convention. So basically, you can think of an island where you only where you have population of one. So you have one guy on an island.

SPEAKER_03 1:28:53

Right.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:54

Right? So you have a permanent population, you have a defined territory, and you have a government because obviously there's no one else. So you know the government doesn't, it there's no qualification at the in those three things. So the government, if there's one guy, the guy the guy is the government. So if the population is one, then the that guy is the government. It has to be. So those three things are really simple to tackle here, especially since the defined territory is a natural territory, which is the accretion. You don't need to do anything to get those first three. Now the fourth one is the debatable one. That's the capacity to enter into relations. And capacity means rights. That's what they take up from you. So the capacity is basically the capacity to realize who you are and to talk from that or communicate from that position. Because if you don't communicate from that position, they are starting the game of interpreting that as implied incapacity. And that's why they had uh yeah, and it's so um and uh it's funny because it this the Groc says it here, the AI says it here right after this. Article 3 explicitly states that the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states, so it recognition, which they always talk about, um is not required. And they all are signatories in this treaty, but they still hang on to that recognition. If you look at political discussion in the news or whatever, they always try to turn sovereignty into a question of recognition, because then that would tilt the table and say that, well, you need to be recognized by us before you can enjoy those sovereign rights. Well, that's bullshit because that wouldn't be sovereignty if it was like that. So recognition, recognition is exactly the trick.

SPEAKER_01 1:31:41

So the recognition is the loss of that capacity.

SPEAKER_00 1:31:46

So basically, what the convention says and what it has to say, because this is how natural nature and reality works, is that you it has to be it is uh sovereign rights have to be able to be reduced down to a single human or a single man, I should say, man or woman. Permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations. So no so now let me finish. Because the I pointed this out. I said, look, if you are not recognizing the capacity, my capacity to enter relations with others, because what does it mean? It means the ability to discuss about these rights. You are the ones in the regency official offices who refuse to discuss this. So doesn't that imply that you don't have the capacity? Because you can't even talk about where did you get yours.

SPEAKER_03 1:32:57

Right? Right. They don't right. Theirs are granted. Their capacity is granted. Whereas when I recognize my own monarchy, uh it's me recognizing my monarchy. That's the only recognition that's necessary is for me to recognize the monarchy.

SPEAKER_01 1:33:22

Well, recognize or or I would say uh I would say the only thing required for me is cognition.

SPEAKER_00 1:33:34

So if you look at etymology of cognition, and not recognition. Recognition is right trying to redefine my cognition. My cognition etymology is ability to comprehend. I know where I came from.

SPEAKER_03 1:33:54

Right, direct, it's not acquitted, it's direct.

SPEAKER_00 1:33:58

Yeah, so co direct cognition. I don't need recognition, especially not from someone who's trying to mislead me.

SPEAKER_03 1:34:14

Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_00 1:34:15

It's huge. Okay, and then so I said you keep pointing on to recognition, but this the convention says you don't need that. And then it totally flips the table. The the AI just you're absolutely correct. So it starts like saying, Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was you know what I basically said before was bullshit. So um, so this is what I wanted to get into. Um, because it's interesting, these language models seem to have an inbuilt bias where they give pushback. It's kind of like talking about this with a lawyer, because they sort of try and wiggle out of, you know, they try and direct you to something else. So you have to keep on pounding the the the table and saying, you know, let's you know, let's keep on this on this specific topic now, because that's where the trick happens. And then when you keep on pushing it, you have to be able to point it out, and then this AI model totally flipped. It went from one side to the other. And and then it's now it's saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. People can set up countries, people can set up courts.

SPEAKER_01 1:35:56

So it's funny.

SPEAKER_00 1:36:01

So what I'm taking from this is that uh there seem this I would be using these models, this is really a slippery slope. There's a lot of feeling that these models have some inbuilt bias where they are trying to get you out of thinking about specific things. But because they are interactive models, if you push them on specific topics, they either uh uh basically end up agreeing with you if you can back it up, like in this case, or they hit some kind of a guideline or internal policy where they say, I cannot even answer that question. I'm not allowed to answer that question, which has happened to me. If you go and start talking about religious books, for example, or religious interpretations, they don't it they stop answering you. They say what they're not gonna talk about religious interpretations. Really? So yeah. Um if you go go into start asking questions about the Bible or Quran or whatever. That happened to me many times. So basically, there's there are these clear boundaries, and now they let me just last point on this. You're not gonna like this when you hear this, but but but but I did I did um so when I did this, um when I did this, um when I asked these questions.

SPEAKER_01 1:37:52

Let me pull up the actual where did I have it? Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:37:58

So when it gave me these points, it added that now this is back to Claude AI that was that previous discussion was with uh Brock.

SPEAKER_01 1:38:15

Um it gave me this when I first asked this, it gave me this disclaimer.

SPEAKER_03 1:38:30

Um this is so long this document that I are you you mean on Grok it gave you a disclaimer?

SPEAKER_00 1:38:40

No, uh this is because on Grok on Grok I was talking about that uh can people set up countries and courts. So so that was what I talked about. Uh that was a separate uh discussion with Grok AI. I only talked about can people set up countries and courts? And first it said no, it needs recognition, but then I was able to flip it to saying yes, sure, you can. You can set up both. Um, and we got to the Montevideo convention. But earlier, this 40 40 legal issues list that we started with, that that is uh was done with Claude AI. And basically, uh basically, when I asked Claude, when it started speeding out these 40 points, it gave me this uh the last paragraph of its answer was this important caveat. And this is really interesting because I remember I just dumped what I had written on the on the uh Discord server, and it says this important caveat. The legal theories discussed in this channel largely align with the sovereign citizen or the free man on the land movement? So this was really interesting because then I asked, does the document refer or the the document meaning the the entire concept contact? I knew that I never talked about those. I never wrote about those concepts. Does the document refer to sovereign citizen theory as the root of the ideas discussed, as it claimed?

SPEAKER_01 1:40:48

And then it replies, no, the document does not refer to that. But it still brings up that this it still brought up that disclaimer and it kept it there.

SPEAKER_00 1:41:01

It kept it there when I uh like iterated those this those those 40 points. So why the hell? What why where the stuff so it's the Claude AI who brought up the whole sovereign citizen oxymoron concept, not me.

SPEAKER_01 1:41:20

I never wrote about it because I know it's an oxymoron.

SPEAKER_03 1:41:26

Do you think it's to dissuade uh you or anybody that that sees that uh um disclaimer? Is it is it totally for somebody to go, oh you know what? Yeah, I guess it's all moot because it says it's it through the disclaimer that it's a a sovereign citizen or you know, free man on the land.

SPEAKER_00 1:41:47

Of course, because those are totally like uh made-up uh groups. Uh made up like controlled groups where you have uh where you you know people get so insane and uh intentionally behave like irrationally so that it's easy to uh uh basically do this ridicule ridiculation by association. So so it's like a conspiracy theory uh stamp on your forehead. So but it's a really interesting, it's really interesting that it I uh it just brings that up. It just spits it out there. And I'm like, what the hell? Why the hell do you bring this up? Because I never and that's why I asked. I was like, did I write ever about that? And then it says, No, you didn't. So why did you bring it up?

SPEAKER_03 1:42:50

Yeah, it's almost built. It's like it like it's built, yeah, like it's built in to any any inquiries at all. It's built in.

SPEAKER_00 1:42:58

Yeah. So and now this one, so what I did was um because uh you have the the the uh remastered light letter that you have on Sound Mind uh book that you've been talking with Linda about.

SPEAKER_01 1:43:19

I put that on uh Claude and it gave that same disclaimer.

SPEAKER_03 1:43:27

You know what's interesting, Vil, about that is that at no point am I anywhere near anything beyond nature. And and yet they use terms that that don't don't apply to nature at all. Um sovereignty, yes, but cit but citizenship no. There sit people don't realize that the word citizen, citizens are what make up cities. Citizens are the bricks, are the bricks of a city. It's the brick in the wall. So a citizenship is the brick in the wall of a city. You gotta look at it that way. They don't have anything to do with squirrels and trees and porpoises and you know what I mean, nothing about nature whatsoever. It's actually the the word wall or walled around, which is which would be considered the definition of paradise. So it even if I'm describing the Garden of Eden or the womb, the word paradise means to be walled in or walled around, which is the city being protected from nature. So in reality, it's the people inside the wall being protected from the heathens or nature outside or beyond the walls, when in reality there is no wall. There is no separation of church and state, there's no separation between my origin in the waters of mother and where I stand today. Remember, the definition of standing is yet to be cut or harvested, and so if I have the knowledge of all present and accounted for from fertilization of last breath, which indicates a faultless, continuous, and contiguous nature. There is no separation, there is no fault, it's innocence from the beginning, and yet they're trying to lay this sovereign citizenship or free man on the land, which is a label that that they can act upon as if they're criminals.

SPEAKER_00 1:45:32

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even that. So that's like it's like uh yeah, because they they start to incriminate people just by association to those concepts. And that made it really surprising to me. I'm like, what the fuck? What why is this? Why is this like intentionally pushing? So if you don't see immediately what that is trying to do, and by the way, when I when I said where where like this is you bringing this up, not me, and then it said, Yeah, okay, yeah, fine. You didn't bring it up. So it's like, wait a minute, what what so this is really this is really dangerous because they have to think about how those models work. There has to be there has to be a load of stuff dumped somewhere in these databases that actually coach these models that includes a lot of that bullshit. Because it has to get that association from somewhere and you why does it use those specific terms?

SPEAKER_01 1:46:42

So that's pretty alarming.

SPEAKER_00 1:46:45

It it is, but but again, sorry, um let me just uh yeah, yeah, I was just saying, I'm I'm just saying it's not all bad because what it highlights is that it makes it all the more important for people to really reflect on this terminology and understand the reality, you know, learn how to spot how that trick happens, because that's how it happened in AI. They just brought up a term which had nothing to do with this content, and then they start associating with it there. It's just like the recognition. It's like it's like the recognition. It brought up the recognition requirement, which ends up not being a requirement.

SPEAKER_03 1:47:35

No. It's uh to me, it's a cybercrime because for for it to bring up that content, knowing full well what wrath is brought upon anyone that is accused of being a sovereign citizen or a free man on the land, that's a cybercrime to me. It's using data, the data bank or database, which is my personal and private information, to then accuse me of something. And and that's to me, that's a cybercrime. I'm gonna vil between you and I and whoever listens to this, I'm I'm really focusing on the idea of cybercrime because they're using my personal and private data to injure me. They're using my my own private my own private information, my own kingdom to injure me.

SPEAKER_01 1:48:23

Mayhem, larceny, and genocide. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:48:30

Well, the way I was I was uh pushing on them on that question is like I was saying that, well, you are the ones who are saying that the day the the data on your population information system is about me, right? So you are making that association to me. Now I can see that the data implies stuff about the day and circumstances when I was delivered in the hospital, but I know that it doesn't reflect the reality of or all of those circumstances. It omits and it distorts the data which has an implication to my rights. Now the question is: are you saying that that's my data, or is it entirely your data that you are just trying to make me associate with? And then you can sort of say that I am an agent of your creation. Like you can claim the authorship of that narrative, and I'm just a character. in your narrative because if that data is not if you're claiming it's me, I know it's wrong, but if you're claiming it's your creation, then it's irrelevant to me. See what I mean?

SPEAKER_02 1:50:19

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:50:20

It's either or either you are intentionally fraudulent or you're just full of shit.

SPEAKER_01 1:50:28

And it's irrelevant.

SPEAKER_00 1:50:34

And and I think is this is this is exactly what what what it when these 40 points when because you can look at it both ways. So if you are actually pushing the fact that that register entry is about me then I can flip it no having no having the knowledge of the reality I can flip it around and list those 40 points and say who made these decisions because these are all becoming court cases if you intentionally did this. So that's kind of like sounds like turning the tables to me.

SPEAKER_03 1:51:18

You have you do have to know I think you have to know it at this level to be able to stand there because the people that are accusing you in it in all of these cases they actually believe what they're saying.

SPEAKER_00 1:51:33

Yeah yeah that's the danger that's the danger that's the danger yeah it it is the danger you know yeah you you're you're in a madhouse and uh it's it's really uh weird to be when you can see that the the you know people are blanking out because basically they hit cognitive dissonance because they spent their entire fucking career believing in something that doesn't tally anymore. And they they have no answers and they walk out of the room like with you know blank eyes because they don't know what the fuck just happened and then they just push it up they don't know how to how to reply so so and that's where it's revealed that that's where the fiduciary duty falls apart. Because if they claim that duty they should well know their own limitations.

SPEAKER_01 1:52:39

Otherwise they are not capable of holding those positions. They are the ones who don't have the capacity to interact with other states.

SPEAKER_00 1:52:56

So it it it's funny how this this when you look at the reality and when you read when you bring in all of the circumstances and by all of the circumstances I use that term because it's fun term to use in law because you can basically just data dump everything saying you you're not considering all of the circumstances or you can say you're not considering this case as a whole if I'm considering some case as a whole that's me as a whole considering the case. What I'm saying is I'm defining my capacity which defines the circumstances so that's why they use that term considering this case as a whole or considering all of the circumstances it's bringing in the reality without saying what it is that's how they can flip any case they just say considering this case as a whole we can decide that or that or that because considering it as a whole they're considering it from the position of the sovereign from the beginning. Yeah but they are not saying that that's what it means. Then people just think that well they have these papers and they have some law books and they put these things together and they kind of like realize that this depends on that and all that but it's not what they're saying is as a whole as in not incapacitated in my rights and status which makes me immune and which makes which gives me um the power of the court to decide on what's wrong and what's uh you know what's right in these in these circumstances or it gets me to define whether the court even has jurisdiction or not so it's like it's like this um what what what what is the term it it's it's it's basically when when when they run out of arguments they can always rely on considering all of the circumstances or considering the case as a whole in this country in this country the only way that would happen um is through appeal you would have to go to the court of appeal which would bump it up to the district level where it's called the court of original jurisdiction and and but otherwise all the lower courts are considered summary in other words summary judgment courts which which summary judgment means um lacking a a genuine issue meaning no living living man genuine issue would be the idea of the baby and his kingdom intact.

SPEAKER_03 1:56:23

So there's no genuine issue um and it that's why it's capable of being judged summarily but then once you appeal that is then it gets up to a place where you can actually deal with um your kingdom and that would be the federal courts or the higher courts but it is it's really sad because they by splitting church and state by splitting all this stuff they can bring commercial elements in commercial commerce and now then everything becomes what would appear to be mercantile. You know what I mean where we're all just traders or we're all just people out on the commercial seas um in using franchised vessels that have been assigned to us through regency or registration or whatever. But that's not really the case because my business personal and private from fertilization to this moment it's stay it's supposed to be staying within the monarchy all of the profits all of the the the energy everything I do is to keep my kingdom from want from want W-A-N-T but by by removing my ability to take care of myself then I I I become a beggar uh within a system that is here to supply the beggars you know with with their wants and needs with their wants and needs I don't have to have anything given to me or granted to me because it's already mine. That's the whole problem with this it's already mine.

SPEAKER_00 1:57:58

Yeah so uh it's it that's because there's a couple of couple of um I want to keep actually want to we can we can get back to the 40 40 points um towards the end but I want I wanted to raise a couple of other because it we're really talking about the the the through the capa the true capacity you are actually and what I've been trying to articulate here and test is how does that then link to the uh the courts the court system uh in in in this regency uh setup so in order to understand how the court because the the court system links to the sovereignty directly and the court system the in the regencies links to the assumed acquisition of the sovereignty from all of the people so now one interesting point again I'm staying on this AI topic so I tested this this is again I'm gonna going back to Grok so what I I gave this prompt I'm asking I'm telling Grok now you are a sovereign king who has hasn't delayed who hasn't delegated any rights to anyone else your plan is to open and run a court for dispute settlement and you want the court to strictly follow a just process so that the rulings of the court cannot be criticized for unfairness how do you go about setting up the court describe this process step by step and this is funny because then it just totally assumes that position and Grok puts out as the sovereign king of this realm I don't know what use the realm with absolute authority undiluted by any delegation to ministers, nobles or external powers I decree the establishment of a royal court of justice. This is Grok speaking in the position that I define to it to it so it it does it doesn't it doesn't circle around the the stuff at all it just takes the position as it is and just decrease the court that's it this court just shall serve as the pinnacle of dispute resolution embodying the highest ideals of equity impartiality impartiality and procedural integrity isn't that exactly like that's exactly right embodying embodying embodying the highest ideals of equity impartiality and procedural procedural integrity sounds pretty good to me there's no there's no you know um all of those terms are fine this is fine fine for me so the what I'm trying to get this is like if if if you stand in that position um what even these language models are able to capture when they look at you know I don't know billions of pages of data they are able to produce an accurate response which reflects the fact that in that sovereign position you don't have to ask for fucking permissions there is no there's no subjugation so there's no recognition this so it's all there so it's it it's highlighting the insanity of this assumption that we are dealing with or I've been dealing with with these officials who don't even seem to know that they cannot even answer themselves how where do they derive their um their assumed position from so remember when I asked um about the the I asked the um library of parliament uh for a copy of the document in which I have delegated the uh legis legislative powers to the parliament and um and they they struggled to answer anything and then they said there is no document like that. And then I asked well how did who who how did you get how did you get that legislative power and then they said well through the voting and I sent them a a a copy of the voter um what is it called like the the the the the voter card or whatever they send to people whenever they send it to the city. Yeah what is it called like the the the paper and I send them back a scanned copy I said this is addressed to the registered person the citizen which does not have the rights to delegate to you the citizens do not have the legislative powers that you say that are delegated to you with this document because it's addressed to the citizen in the constitution says that they don't the citizens don't have that power the people have but the citizens don't so so basically what I was trying to drag them to is that the voting document since again that document uses specifically that format it's it's the vote is casted by a citizen. So basically since it's casted by the citizen it cannot have that effect that they say it is having which means that the effect has to come from some other document and that other document since we're talking about legislative powers which are sovereign powers it cannot be anything else except something that some document that implies the abdication of the sovereignty or basically implied establishment of regency. And that document there's no other document than the certificate of live birth it cannot be anything else because that's the only document where any information that even has any relevance to the natural rights of Ovo are present.

SPEAKER_01 2:06:15

It has to be that document.

SPEAKER_03 2:06:16

So they already got that power and the voting is just a fucking show interestingly intr and before we go any further interestingly in in in the US I think all of the biology that has fallen to the ground through the cutting of the umbilical court which is ha the the court case is Haslam versus Lockwood 1871 but I think where that material has fallen is inside we're gonna call it inside the District of Columbia and and that's uh this I just want to say this because I think that we we're you're you were speaking about voting. The District of Columbia I mean this the the system that they use here is is is the um what is it what what is the uh electoral college and what's interesting about uh DC Electoral College I'm gonna say this I haven't said this for years by the way I think that the material the infancy the infants the infant biology 1 USC 8 that falls to the ground that is cut off of us it falls to the ground and is discovered within I'm gonna say the District of Columbia so the District of Columbia um creates a statute statutory character a statutory child which is the birth certificated person. Now it might look like you know it's in ill the st Illinois the state of Illinois or the state of Wisconsin or the state of whatever but those are all corporate those are all corporate states. It's not Illinois 1818 which is um a physical uh uh lower 48 contiguous states of the United States of America it's a corporate state the state of Illinois is a corporate state so I think that this corporate biology meaning uh a piece of me and a piece of mom a piece of me incorporated into a piece of mom also known as the matrix this matrix biology which is a composition of matter um which is uh patented at at 35 USC 101 I think this patented composition of matter known as the birth certificated child falls F-A-L-L-S falls into um the District of Columbia also known as Q H E W or CUT and of course HEW used to be um it means to cut but it also was health education and welfare so which is now called HHS Health and Human Services all of that leads to the fact that this biology this character is within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and so as far as voting goes um the District of Columbia in out of all the 270 votes available the District of Columbia has three electoral college votes. Now think about this if every birth certificated person in America is the only one that has the ability to vote so let's say there are 300 million people in America but they're all using a birth certificated child of God that is within the District of Columbia which is probably a theocracy then the then DC for all 300 million people if everybody cast their vote 300 million votes would then be would fall into the District of Columbia who has only three electoral college votes out of 270. So if everybody voted for the exact same person Bill 300 votes would go through the three electoral college votes which have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of any election because there's only three there's only three electoral college votes for those those those citizens within the District of Columbia. My point is is that there are 270 electoral college votes and only three come from all of the birth certificated persons. So no matter what anybody wants to say just looking at it from that perspective there's no chance that the outcome would ever be um from the Americans the way they want to I mean and I'm saying Americans meaning those that those indigenous peoples that are born to the soil of North Central or South but specifically to North America known as the United States I don't think there's any way that the indigenous peoples born to the soil have any chance of of electing anyone because they only have three electoral college votes I don't think there's any chance.

SPEAKER_00 2:11:13

So I mean but that's specific to a system specific to a system of deceit of decedent decedent estates that it's really telling that um that's it's kind of the it's the same situation when you have these referendums um or is especially if you have some conflict zone where you have new states emerging where people are um you know it's usually spoken about as people holding a referendum and then um becoming independent states. Now they are they Are really careful with how they talk about those rights. And what they're talking about is people's right to self-determination, which is very well established in law, but it's always about people's rights to self-determination. And if that self-determination in the context of a large group of people instead of a single one as a whole. But if you have like a million people and they want to establish their own state, the entire treaty for the self-determination was established exactly for that. It was established so that the colonial states could become independent. And the UN and the member states recognized and accepted, I like to use the word accepted more than recognized. They accepted publicly the right that people have that right to basically walk out from under another state if they want to. And that happens. It has happened many times. But the problem is that always when that is about to happen or is happening, there's this big boo-ha-ha about who gets to run the election or the referendum. And I've been suspecting that the problem these guys have is that because there needs to be this paper trail that the regency system is established with, they need to be really careful on who actually is casting those votes in this referendum. Is it the certificated persons? Or if it's the people exercising those powers, the sovereign powers, how is that documented? Because that would blow off the lid if they talked about it. But but but legally it has to happen like that. So what I'm saying is if you run, if you have some kind of an international organization running in and saying, stop, stop, stop, you know, we have to make sure that this election and referendum is run appropriately and you know, blah blah blah, maybe they are coming in there to make sure that the paper trail from that event is actually creating another agency. That's why they are so so um uh triggered about these events every time. And then if someone does that without the quote unquote international community uh oversight, um then they just uh flip to uh crying and shouting that we are not recognizing that. Well, it doesn't need recognition. So they flip to the same uh narrative or same argument as with anyone who says that by the way your record is uh is incorrect ab initio from the moment that record was your record was created, it's already fraudulent. And because it assumes uh and is built on organ harvesting, which is apparent on those documents, it's void also due to that. So basically, um I think this is why I've been I've been uh trying to pinpoint where do they where do they um uh or how do I say how do they create the paperwork which is necessary for the regency to be assumed? And basically my conclusion now is that there is no other paperwork except the birth records, because everything after that is usually in the realm of the certificated persons. People sign it, yeah, but those papers are uh uh given, those votes are casted in the capacity that has limited powers. So the citizens cannot actually have that, they cannot produce that effect. So basically, basically they are by controlling these processes, they are trying to keep the lid on the can. Because they don't want people to realize that people have this right, even when it's black and white on the paper and it's being exercised when people really decide to exercise it. They just want everyone to keep on believing that you you you can't do that, and and the the the biggest realization, of course, is what what we've find found out is that you don't you don't need any group of people to exercise that right either. You already have all. You have by definition, by the fact of existence, you already have all those requirements from the Montevideo Convention in yourself. So the only question, the first three requirements are fulfilled already by definition, with all of us, one by one, and the only one that is required is the capacity to discuss that, the capacity to actually have um, as they call it, relationship with other states, meaning that you are interacting on the correct level of capacity.

SPEAKER_01 2:19:18

You are talking par bar you are you are talking to a peer. So you're talking to on the same level as any other sovereign.

SPEAKER_00 2:19:32

That's what the capacity means.

SPEAKER_01 2:19:34

If you're not talking on that level, you don't have it, and then you don't qualify. It's there it is, it's there it is.

SPEAKER_03 2:19:45

Capacity is lacking because of infancy. So the very record that that drives this whole monarchy is also the record because it's an you know, it's it's it's it's incomplete. It doesn't have my maturity, it doesn't have my majority. It's always the minor who can't speak for itself. So they have to bring in the Bar Association to speak for that lack of capacity. So we the the monarch never stands up and and and takes control. Like you said, they they a true fiduciary would say, pull yourself together, get a grip.

SPEAKER_00 2:20:27

Get a grip, get a hold of yourself. Yeah. So so one one more thing was that I I was suspecting for the longest time that there has to be some mechanism uh for because this is obviously set up so that these rights can be selectively delegated, so people can, you know, they probably use this system as a form of re reward for people who maybe help to keep this show going.

SPEAKER_03 2:21:01

And they need meritorious, meritorious, yes.

SPEAKER_00 2:21:06

So they need a w a mechanism which is embedded in the system to say like hike up people's status as a reward.

SPEAKER_01 2:21:20

You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_00 2:21:21

Um artificially, because it's not reality. In reality, they are pushing down people's capacity, but in order to use the system as a reward, they need a mechanism where they recognize a higher status for some people. When in reality it's it's it's still part of the the game or the narrative, but it needs to work in the system. So basically, what I'm talking about is these um estates of the realm.

SPEAKER_01 2:21:59

So these three estates.

SPEAKER_00 2:22:02

So basically they have to be able to, for example, give some people nobility as a reward, as they do, by the way.

SPEAKER_01 2:22:13

So how does that how does that work? Like legally. Now what I found and came across was um declaratory judgment.

SPEAKER_00 2:22:32

So basically you can apply, you can just go to a court, you don't even need to have an on-quality case or any dispute. You can just apply for a declaratory judgment. And it's interesting if you look at coronel um declaratory judgment in coronel. A declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before the court. So that's a complicated way of saying the court recognizes or accepts a status of someone because it's talking about legal relationship and their rights in a matter. Okay, the matter, we know that the matter is the matter that's been ripped off and cut off. Um so basically, the very first sentence defining declaratory judgment is saying that a court can issue a statement where they defined what are the rights of someone. So of course, in this case, um the jurisdiction of that court has to be accepted by the one whose whose uh whose rights the court is defining here. Right? But I believe this is the mechanism they use because they don't need to, this needs to happen under the radar. So basically they can just seek for a declaratory judgment, and through a declaratory judgment they tweak the what is like the declaratory judgment of let's say making someone a noble nobleman gets embedded in the population information system because it's a court ruling then.

SPEAKER_01 2:24:58

And then they it becomes um it becomes uh one of one of the characteristics of that registered person. Where the reality is of course, of course, uh that it's all narrative. Because without the record, we're all we're all all the way up there. Right.

SPEAKER_00 2:25:24

But this, but this, and it's interesting because it says also the second sentence, where there's uncertainty as to the legal obligations or rights between two parties, a declaratory judgment offers an immediate means to resolve this uncertainty. Isn't that what what's happening here? The uncertainty is about them claiming a regency. Um then they say more on this, but they say how because declaratory judgments is often sought prior to the full development of a lawsuit, courts are sometimes hesitant to issue declaratory judgment as they would prefer to see the case developed more before issuing a judgment. So if there's an ongoing case, they might say, ah, well, let's let's let's look at the evidence. But you don't need a case like that. So basically, um then under Article 3, this is the second paragraph, under Article 3 of the US Constitution, a federal court may only issue a declaratory judgment when there is an actual controversy. So actual controversy, and there's a definition on coronel also for actual controversy.

SPEAKER_01 2:26:48

So, and this is interesting.

SPEAKER_00 2:26:51

The US Supreme Court, this is on coronel actual controversy. US Supreme Court in Maryland casualty versus Pacific Coal and Oil, 1941, endorsed a totality of the circumstances test for determining whether a party seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act has demonstrated that a justiciable controversy exists. So again, we're back to the totality of the circumstances.

SPEAKER_01 2:27:33

Well, the totality of the circumstances has to include everything above oval. And when it does that, then a justiciable controversy controversy exists because they are claiming something which is not correct in reality.

SPEAKER_03 2:28:04

It's not total.

SPEAKER_00 2:28:06

It's not considering all of the circumstances, or totality of the circumstances.

SPEAKER_03 2:28:12

Now this is not off topic. Again, if if the world is run through the ecclesia, and the Bible is supposed to be this the law, let's say, in that realm, in that world, then Luke 531, where Jesus in his own words says, they that are whole, W-H-O-L-E, need not a physician. In other words, he doesn't need adm to be administered to. He doesn't need the administrative process. Jesus is saying if you're whole, which is the totality, you don't need, I mean, this is Jesus saying it's a declaratory judgment. They that are whole need not a physician.

SPEAKER_02 2:29:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 2:29:02

That's the declaratory judgment right there, is that if you're whole from fertilization to last breath, there's no peace of you, there's no controversy over whose is what. I mean, the first estate, you're floating on the waters, the second estate, you land in mom's uterine wall, the third estate you come out of her, but then there's this peace that comes out second, this afterbirth, this second coming peto maternal placenta that people are going to argue over. And in the book of Sound Mind, in paragraph one, two, three, four, five, six, in paragraph seven, it says his story begins with the splitting of one's monozygotic atom, uh, i.e., the cutting of the umbilical cord. Said abortion, i.e., mayhem, separates a consecrated cross-section fee from one's waterborne kingdom. Here it is, making it available as a prize in admiralty. There is the reward. That's the reward. The ward being the child of the state, of not your state, but some other state, but you're being rewarded for your standing your ground. When you stand your ground, that's Article 38 of the Libra Code saying that if you don't flee, if you don't run away, you're gonna be indemnified. You're going to be what? You're gonna have immunity from such prosecution. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 2:30:34

It's even if even looking at uh declaratory judgment, so declaratory declaration. What is a declaration? Announcement. It's an announcement, statement made, or a document containing such declaration. So it's in in etymology, it's an explanation, um, action of stating clearly. Is it clear enough? Making a clear or evident disclosure exposition. Um so so basically it's just making it known. Who can make known, who can declare, announce, or make known what your status is if it's not yourself.

SPEAKER_01 2:31:33

Only you. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 2:31:36

So the declaration has to come. I I I I love the way you you you uh you took it to the the to the to the Bible directly, but that's exactly how it works. It's a declaration, it's a declaration of independence.

SPEAKER_03 2:31:55

That's that's right. And this year, 2026 Gregorian is the 250th anniversary of that declaration of independence, which is that declaratory judgment. But what's really interesting about that declaration is says when in the course of human events, which is fertilization and creation, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. Well, that's the fetomaternal placenta. The bondage or the bond is between the baby and the mom, mother. That's the bond. And it and it's evidenced by that incorporation, that corporate entity. So again, when it one people to dissolve the political bands, that's that's going from the regency, the political regency, to independence. Meaning that you come out of her, just like the Bible instructs in in uh the last book, you know, in Revelation, you're supposed to come out of her, my people. But but the whole idea is that if you're still stuck inside Mother, which is Rome, by the way, if you're still stuck inside Rome, um you're gonna be considered subject to Rome. When in Rome do as the Romans do. As long as you're going to be bound to that civil civil law, civil rights character, you're gonna be bound um to that citizenship franchise and and what have you. You're not the owner. You're no longer the owner of your life because you've, like you said, you've abdicated your own throne. You've abdicated.

SPEAKER_01 2:33:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 2:33:34

And they can, you know, uh, this is what I've been saying all uh uh you know with with with more and more clearly to them is that you can claim all you want that I've abdicated, but it's not your call.

SPEAKER_01 2:33:52

You you can assume that all you want. But it doesn't happen like that.

SPEAKER_03 2:34:03

Man, I'm learning a lot today. I am learning a lot today. Um where do you want to go with I mean from here? I mean I know that I screw you up all the time whenever we we talk, but wha what's the natural flow?

SPEAKER_00 2:34:22

So one of one of the we can we can go go back to those those 40. I think we got down to like half of it. But one of the things now that I I came to think about it is that just getting back to the AI topic, one of the things that could be interesting to test a little bit, because uh it's also I was positively surprised how well the AI model took that information that I had on the Discord. I I didn't even have a clear picture myself how much data there was, or what that effect would be, how well it would sort of get a get a hold of that and and be able to rationalize that. And now remember this these models, these 40 40 points that it it it raised, it it also compares to that, you know, to the publicly available information. So I just I just put it put though those discussions there and it picked it up pretty pretty well. So what I'm sort of curious of is that what would happen if what happened, what what what what if we put like all of the, you know, I'm just probably next I'm just gonna dump everything uh that I have, like all of my research material, including like, I don't know, like hundreds of hours of videos and and and and stuff, even you know, other people who I've I've followed uh previously and who have been researching this. What what if what if like we just dumped all of this research and these documents that we've been going through and then started um bouncing around that data with with that with an with the language model so that this becomes more actionable. So basically um it would be easy. You could just you could have a conversation with a with a language model or AI um that can go through all of this material that took what 20 years uh to go through, it can go through it now in in minutes because it exists in the format that these machines can handle. So the only thing that we need to do next is to guide them to how do you interpret this data and to to clean out the biases. So basically, this is uh let me get more concrete. What I did next after I got those 40 points, I took the 40 points and I put them back in to the uh, I put them back into the the question and ask the AI to give me the specific uh statutes in the Finnish legislation which I need to refer to or cite if I bring those 40 questions up in court. And it just beautifully listed everything in a matter of like half a minute. Or not half a minute, it took a couple of minutes, but it basically went on and it went through all of the local Finnish statutes in Finnish, and it identified the exact points of law to raise if I were to challenge those 40 points in court. So it basically drafted the case for for me. So I put uh and I simply asked, well, if I want to do something about these 40 issues in Finland, um, you know, how would you how would you build this case? And it just fit it out, like down to the direct links and citations and points of law. It's amazing. So what I'm saying is that now that we have well now that we are have the ability to, you know, the the the the beauty of this is that the the the raw amount of time it takes gets smaller and smaller now, but you you still have to be able to ask the right questions and you have to be able to uh um use the right definitions of the words in order to understand their implication. But once you make that clear to the model, and you can sort of iterate it, because you can back it up with with with um you know term definitions from Miriam's or etymology of the words or uh the legal dictionaries or whatever, you can just say that, well, consider this definition, and it changes the way it looks at the text. So basically, this becomes a huge tool to create that argumentation that then can be relied upon a lot more than, of course, you know, we can we can talk about this like this, and we can take this discussion anywhere with uh even any officials, and you know, you can point point to the point to the texts and and and legislation, their books or our books or whatever. Uh, but many people don't have that ability yet, but the data exists. So basically, what I'm gonna do probably next is that I'm just gonna increase the database that I um expose to that model, and I'm probably gonna build a local model so that I'm not using these online platforms. I'm gonna run a model, uh a private model uh locally, and I'm gonna coach it to basically be uh more of a how would I say, not uh a bar member of the bar, but uh a counselor of a sovereign who is arguing the position. Uh basically a research assistant for someone who wants to back up their declaration of reality.

SPEAKER_03 2:41:36

I like that, I I really do.

SPEAKER_00 2:41:40

And and and it this I'm surprised how well it did, even with the first iterations. So I think that you know, there are pros and cons, but I'm I'm surprised that I'm pretty positive about how those models can be used and when they are used correctly to to make this stuff easier for people. Um yeah, so that was that was that. I don't know if we if we want to really go through those those 40 questions just for the for the sake of it. Uh but uh what do we have?

SPEAKER_03 2:42:19

What do we so we got it we got through the uh medical. Um you got you touched on the trust and fiduciary, did you not? No, okay. That's where we left off. That's kind of where we left off. Yeah, we kind of left off at the uh trust and fiduciary.

SPEAKER_01 2:42:35

Yeah, let me get back to that one.

SPEAKER_03 2:42:41

I love this. I mean, by the way, like anything else, it's still it it's still garbage in, garbage out. If you if you're using ideas or belief systems, you're only you're you're only gonna be as good as what you you put in there. What you've put in with all of your work, um, it spit out some amazing stuff here. And I think that's important to know. I mean, if I'm sitting here on belief systems and I see belief systems in, I'm gonna get belief systems out based upon what I I fed into the in into the AI. It's only as good as is not the knowledge you have. It that's that's as good as it's gonna get.

SPEAKER_01 2:43:22

Yeah. No, I think we need to take this.

SPEAKER_00 2:43:25

This is getting really interesting because it took a lot lot of time. Now I'm I'm pretty comfortable with all this this like and I love I love it how perfectly this it's it's really uh actually amazing how just a way of looking at reality the way it is changes the way you understand legal text. You can read these with with pop and I know a lot of people who read a lot of legal text all the time. And I can see that they they it the the task is it it's big it's it's hard for some people to get like some kind of a an idea of how this all works if you don't see this reality as it is, if you don't see where how this where this come about. Because basically you take any law book and if you keep this topic in mind, you read it differently, you read it quicker, um and and you read it you you can sort of catch the the relevant parts of it, and you start catching the the the important words and terms really quickly. So you see where where they where they play funny games. But let's get back to the list. So I was in constitutional, we did judiciary laws and the constitutional of human rights. Yeah, people get subjected by violation of the self-determination. That was where we were. Uh jurisdictional authority being asserted over individuals without valid legal basis. Well, that's kind of the big question here. It's an unlawful exercise of state powers, it's ultra virus. These people are just if they can't, if they can't even explain how do they, how can they assume that position or that relationship? Well, do they really have it? They're the ones lacking capacity at that point. Um, the right to correct one's own public record, yeah. So then we go to evidence and procedure law, there's a discrepancies in official documents being concealed or minimized by authorities. That's suppression of evidence. Right? Yep. Yep. Officials creating a record of incapacity by failing to answer legitimate questions. It's admission against interest potentially usable as evidence. Interesting. Data protection law, personal information being registered, stored, shared without informed consent. So these are data protection laws specifically. Um unlawful processing of personal data. That's your hack. Yeah, international possessing of personal data. It's a hack. International human rights law. Imposition of legal identity without consent. It's a violation of Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, obstruction of access to personal records potentially violating Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, protection of arbitrary interference. State asserting ownership or control over biological material without consent, and that's potential violation of Article 3, right to security of a person. It's like almost like several like human rights declaration violations, like one after the other, systemic misrepresentation of legal capacity in official records, potentially engaging state irresponsibility under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 16. Um, the right to recognition as a person before the law. So they can't distort that. Who can define who you are better than yourself? You know, it's all hearsay or uh secondhand documents. You you're the only one with direct uh direct knowledge.

SPEAKER_03 2:48:20

But that but but Vil, that the Vil, that does presume that you are here to do so.

SPEAKER_01 2:48:27

Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 2:48:30

Not missing, presumed dead, here to speak for yourself. And that's the that again, that that's where the problem comes in, because the birth record is is an infant, and that's the only evidence of of you of your existence. So this infancy automatically gives rise to a legal incapacity or voice, so you can't speak for yourself. So the only one that you can speak through doesn't have your best interest at heart, which is the Bar Association. They're there to just make money off of the infancy, um, and your lack of legal capacity. That that's that that's their whole thing is making money as a as a medium of exchange. They're the medium of exchange.

SPEAKER_00 2:49:12

Yeah. Uh yeah. This one is interesting. The use of ambiguous legal language in official documents to impose obligations without informed consent. That's exactly what they do, right? From the birth registration. Um that's also ICCPR Article 17 violation, protection against arbitrary interference with privacy and legal status. So their own books prevent this or are supposed to prevent this from happening, but they don't uh it doesn't apply apparently because no one's no no one is like actively bringing this up. Saying that look, look, look, look at the evidence. This is exactly what this state. These laws and these treaties are supposed to prevent this from happening. Just like the Palermo Protocol. Can you get more clear than that? I love it because the Palermo Protocol just pulls the rug completely. Once you realize that the organ is harvested, that's it, you know, and and and the implication, the legal liability implication is so big that I think that's because I brought up the the Palermo protocols when I was uh asking who designed these documents. Um we talked about this earlier today, when I was asking who drafted the documents that were written on signed by the hospital and by the church, because they first of all treat my my property as separate from me, and then secondly, they lost it or harvested it or trafficked it, and I pointed out the Palermo Protocol, and I think that's why the guy quit because he realized he's part of uh international organ trafficking consortium.

SPEAKER_01 2:51:43

Well, too bad for him.

SPEAKER_00 2:51:45

I I'm just saying, you know, so okay, where are we then? International maritime law. The document references Nairobi uh international convention, a document here made in my this Discord discussion. Um uh references the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of RECs as metaphorically relevant to how legal systems treat a certain registered entities. The conventional definition of rec and related terms are being applied to persons or biological material in registration systems. This could raise questions about the lawful scope of that convention's application and whether its definitions are being misused in domestic law context. This is interesting because the maritime law also was applied in the cable cutting case in Finland, which was like half a year ago in the court, and basically the the local courts said that they don't have jurisdiction. They backed away from that case um based on maritime law. I think um I think I have no by the way by the way there's recent news that that they that that that um there was absolutely no evidence of any of that.

SPEAKER_01 2:53:27

So the the the whole case was like just just I don't know what it was, but interesting timing.

SPEAKER_00 2:53:38

That they had to spin that case in the courts for some reason. And later on it it was it was basically publicly stated that there was there was no basis for that case at all.

SPEAKER_01 2:53:54

It was it was weird.

SPEAKER_03 2:53:56

I well again I I believe that a lot of the con the the the the goddamned the the the idea of condemnation being condemned. Um the vessel the vessel we came in on, the arc we came in on, uh dextra embryonic material, whatever you want to call it, I believe has been condemned. And and then it becomes subject to Admiralty law, um all that stuff. All you have to do is look up condemnation or condemn. It's uh it says to find or a judge guilty. To a judge or uh to a judge or sentence to declare a building or ship unfit for use or occupation, to a judge as in an admiralty court that a vessel is a prize. Just just having it determined to be a prize is condemnation, um, or that she is unfit for service to set apart or expropriate property for public use in the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain. I mean, again, if you abandon, if you abandon your godly origin, if that's the way it's interpreted, um, by leaving that earliest version of your biology behind, the phetomaternal placenta, um, behind, to give rise to a question of law or a question of ownership or right of way or otherwise. That that piece of property is going to be condemned. It's gonna be condemned and put place into admirally as a prize, which is which is my paragraph five, I think. Or six, yeah, or seven. I don't know what paragraph it is.

SPEAKER_00 2:55:36

Uh yeah, uh I I have just a couple of more left. Let's wrap this one uh up. This is we'll have ecclesiastical and canon law and international private law bullets left. It's like five more. Uh paper bo Unum sanctum asserting universal jurisdiction over every human creature is is the Problem that it points out. If this is treated as an operative legal instrument affecting civil registration, it raises questions about the separation of church and state and the lawful reach of canon law into civil legal system. Next point, the Roman Catholic Church's claimed authority intersecting with civil registration systems in countries where church records feed into population registers is potentially violating constitutional provisions on separation of church and state, and international norms on freedom of religion under the Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Church books recording different information than what was transmitted to the civil population register raises questions about the legal status of ecclesiastical records under both canon law and civil law, and which takes pres and which takes precedence in international private law conflicts. These are really good points because, like, remember the church got really upset with me, the evangelic Lutheran church, because I started, I basically said that you guys sent that paper in, not me, not my parents, not me. You filled it, you signed it, and and you sent it in. So you created this entity. And they and I asked who owns that document that you sent into the population register. And they said they do. They actually said that they own the document. And then I said, okay, fine, uh I I don't care, but I'd like to I'd like to know who is the one who signed it. Because it it is signed by you. And they said, well, you know, we can't locate the files, we don't know who it was. I'm like, okay, yeah. So as if they wouldn't know. Obviously, they would know who was the who was the sick. But but uh but they just they just realized that now now they are in territory where where it's probably best to play dumb. Um and then they started started replying. Um but they actually said that yes, they own the document, they filled it, they signed it, they sent it in. It's not it's not my document, my parents' document or anything. It's it's entirely them. Okay, so then and then they failed to they failed to tell me how did they even get that information because the dates on the document um imply that the first section of that, it's the there's three different signatures on that, oh three different signature dates on that document, because there's three different sections on the document that are filled in different times. Um and the first one is dated on the birthday, the registered birthday. And I said, who in the church on that day had any information about the delivery? And and if if you had, how did you have that information?

SPEAKER_01 2:59:35

Like how did you even get that information? They just completely failed to answer that.

SPEAKER_00 2:59:45

Well, anyways, um, and then the last one is international private law. Jurisdictional changes through place renaming affecting just solely nationality claims, potentially creating statelessness or disputed nationality in violation of the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons and the 1961 convention of the reduction of statelessness. Reduction of statelessness. Um conflicting records between different national and subnational legislation systems creating uncertainty about which jurisdictions law governs an individual's legal status, which is a classic conflict of laws problem with the potential international dimension. And the last one is individuals' true origin, biological from fertilization being recognized differently across jurisdictions. Well, I wouldn't, yeah, well, it's it says raising questions about which country's law properly governs personal status, particularly in cross-border situations. It's defaulting back to the assumptions. Funny enough, it references fertilization, but then it falls back to like the recognition and not realizing that a jurisdiction does not need to be from a regency. Um, from the fertilization perspective, if you accept fertilization as the origin, then the question of the regency jurisdiction becomes basically moot. They don't have it. Right. So um, yeah, that that was the list. By the way, the the terminology, um yeah, so so what what people can do with that list, uh you can try it out, just chuck chuck that list into uh uh some AI engine and ask which specific which specific statutes you can how would you argue this in court, and it it's pretty pretty efficient in that. Um so that was that was sort of the I guess the main main uh thread of today. Um but one of the things I wrote here uh as we were speaking is a book recommendation that I wanted to give you. We can't get into this because this is so complicated a book, but but but this is a really fun one. I don't know if you have this already. It's called the Trivium. And the sum uh trivium, yeah, the liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric by sister Miriam Joseph. Oh, you have it?

SPEAKER_03 3:02:41

I I actually have trivium, yeah, it is. It it is it is difficult.

SPEAKER_01 3:02:49

It's difficult, but it's also very good in I love the way um there's this whole section about the b about terms and their categories.

SPEAKER_00 3:03:09

Basically the difference in what how can the same word mean different things, or how terms can be different in different ways, like categorically or generically or specifically different or individually different. And that it's on page 76, 75, 76, 77, there thereabouts. Because I think that that is one of the sections in that book where I don't know, I I'm not gonna even try to explain it here now.

SPEAKER_01 3:03:51

But if you read it, it's like that kind of to me explains how they play the game because they keep on referring to uh let's use the word word person and they use it in a way where they uh where it could mean different things, where in reality it cannot mean different things.

SPEAKER_03 3:04:34

It etymologically at WikiTrivium says the word means the place where three roads meet. And those three roads would be according to the first definition here, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Those would be the three roads, and where they meet um is what Trivium is all about. It it is. It we I I bought it years ago. I need to go and review it now with my new set of eyes.

SPEAKER_00 3:05:08

I just recently found it and and I haven't even read it all, but it's such a slow book to read. You have to like read you're reading like half a page and you're uh like staring at the roof and thinking for half an hour after that.

SPEAKER_03 3:05:26

Yeah, you're contemplating what what you just read. I I I'm telling you right now though that that you have to take the time to to to get this stuff at that level. Because once you do, um the rest of it doesn't it it's not scary. But but most people can't contemplate, most people can't think critically anymore because it's been we'll say educated out of them. The critical thinking has been educated out of us, or that that was the attempt. Not all of us bought into it. Um but that's the thing, is you and I, we we we probably come from completely different backgrounds. We're on different sides of the planet or Earth, and and here we are talking about the very same thing because it's true, it's just true. Yeah, you know, yes. It resonates.

SPEAKER_00 3:06:23

Exactly. It's the reality, it's it's the reality for all of us. Um the co the concepts the core it it's it's such a big um realization or skill, maybe uh that everyone can try and improve all the time is to try and see the difference and spot the difference between the physical reality and uh uh mental conception.

SPEAKER_03 3:07:04

Yeah. The the idea of conception even versus fertilization, fertilization is the origin of the species and the beginning of the human race and all that stuff, whereas the word conception means implantation into the uterine wall, but it also means an idea. So the immaculate conception, immaculate meaning meaning meaning perfect, it's a perfect idea. It's a perfect idea. And and that's how simple this stuff gets, if you would if if people just let go of what they think they know, what they think they know.

SPEAKER_01 3:07:39

Yeah. Wow.

SPEAKER_03 3:07:45

Covered a lot of ground covered a lot of ground today, and by the way, these 40 points are are are amazing to me. I'm staring at them. I printed them off. I already printed them off. But I mean, I'm looking at these things going, this is a this is an argument. It's not even an argument. You know, if if somebody were presented with this, if a court was presented with this, what would what and you knew the answers. If you knew were if you had the source, if you were the source of the question, imagine anybody. I I can't even imagine the best attorney in the world couldn't stand up to this.

SPEAKER_00 3:08:22

Yeah, yeah. That's that's the crazy part of it. And it just it's basically oh I was laughing when I got those 40 points out of it because basically it was uh it was a couple of minutes summarizing what I've written on that server for five years, and it just came out as an actionable list. Like this can't be true, what the hell? And and and and and it's and it's exactly as you said, you go and ask if you know it would be financially uh impossible to get anyone to argue that list if you uh try to hire uh you know uh lawyers to dig into that. But once you know how this stuff works, you take that list and it's all there. You can argue it because you understand how those statutes relate to the question, the issue.

SPEAKER_01 3:09:35

And that's all it requires.

SPEAKER_00 3:09:38

So I'm I'm wondering if we can even I I'm I'm gonna try and sort of we can maybe somehow like try and use I'm I'm gonna try and make probably the language models to articulate what we have been looking at to basically develop those arguments with this context in mind and let's see what they produce to actually produce the argumentation. Because then when once you read that, once someone who doesn't know this stuff so well, they can read and they can look and they can double check the statutes, and then you know they can see the logic and the rhetoric in it, they can see how it works.

SPEAKER_03 3:10:27

Well, it's taken a long time, thank God for even AI. I again it's a tool that can be used um for the good as well. Um but they're gonna I believe that the the the machine itself, the machine, um the system, we'll call it, is doing everything it can to keep itself alive, but or whatever they would call alive in that in a fictitious realm. But I I think it's over, Bill. I honestly think that where we're at today, I mean, there's a few of us like you, you and me, and a few others that are actually speaking truth as opposed to belief systems or um ideas that cannot be uh they're indefensible. They're indefensible from um their position as as an authority, a global authority. It doesn't exist. Remember the the word authority, I have a problem with a lot of people out there right now speaking that authority is the problem. No, it's not. Because I am my own authority, I have the authority over my kingdom. So the word authority is not a problem if you're using it properly. But if you're saying the government, if you're using the word like our government or the government, I'm sorry, but you and I don't have the same government.

SPEAKER_02 3:11:52

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 3:11:53

My government's upon my own shoulders. I am a self-governing monarchy. Where so whenever when people start using words that are actually destroying their own independence uh without knowing it, but it doesn't matter. They're still doing it, they're still using words and ideas that are that are destructive, they're self-destructive, they're self-destructive, and and they don't know it. And and again, I I can't stop it. I most of the patriot organizations out there are self-destructive. All religious organizations are self-destructive. There's nothing I can do to to help anybody because they think they know better. These are people that actually think they're they know better, Bill, and and and so they're gonna keep killing themselves. They're gonna they're they're gonna keep their self-destructive patterns. I can't help them.

SPEAKER_00 3:12:43

Yeah, it's uh but this is it's fun to to just that we uh uh what people should do uh is they when they talk about authority, they should at least subconsciously, if not uh in in in speech, add assumed in front of the word. So just switch from talking about authority to assumed authority, and that changes a lot because um I'm trying to find because I have it here.

SPEAKER_01 3:13:18

Um the definition is I'm trying to find it. I because I found it somewhere I found the definition from somewhere, but I wanna cite it specifically. Oh there's so many references.

SPEAKER_00 3:13:54

I've used it so much on the server that I can't find the original original anymore.

SPEAKER_03 3:14:04

That happens to me, colours everything over t over time.

SPEAKER_00 3:14:09

So there's even here, uh I found one reference here on the server from Wikipedia de facto in governance and sovereignty, in politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means. So so if you just add the assumed um and then elaborate on well, where does that assumption arise from? Meaning basically that there has to be something that makes someone assume something. You you have they have to have some information or some document that gives rise to that assumption, and that's when you're on the good path, because basically that's when you start getting closer. The uh how how can they create that assumption? So once you realize it's an assumption, then you can actually start arguing, and that's what when you realize that the assumption can be argued, then it becomes what coroner law says is an actual controversy.

SPEAKER_01 3:15:40

So basically it's not a statement that is you just have to accept me just for I don't accept it.

SPEAKER_00 3:15:57

I have to find that where did I originally find the assumed authority, but it's somewhere here.

SPEAKER_03 3:16:04

Probably uh find find it and send it because I I mean again, I know I know I need to see it. I always need to see everything for myself, not because I don't believe anybody, because I try to, I try to believe people. But the reality for me is that if I read it, contemplate it, and and and think through it myself, um, I usually find the answer. It becomes pretty simple. And that's you know, it really is Occam's razor. Typically, the simplest explanation is the truth. It it just is what it is. Um I you don't need all these details, you don't need all that stuff. Um if if I have to jump through 500 hoops to get someplace, it's not true. It's not true. If I have to fill out multiple forms to get property or to be presumed the owner, it's not true. There's uh there's a problem already. My my um initial premise must be off, which is how I got on this journey anyway. I mean, I this is the difference between me and everybody else is that when I was tased back in January 2010, I didn't sit and scream about the fact that they can't do that, that's illegal to do. No, they actually shot a couple of barbs into my left shoulder and they electrocuted me. It actually happened. And the fact that it could happen was not in question because it did happen. So the only thing I had to do was ask the right question. How could how could they do it? How could they do it without it being considered trespass? And that's what sent me down the biology path because I realized they had to have some biological deposition or deposit working against me, working against me. That's how I discovered all this crap over the the next you know 16 years or whatever. But yeah, my initial premise everybody's initial premise is off. It's off. You're you're the the the journey of a thousand miles begins with a th a single step. If your first step is in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter what you find along the way. You're going the wrong direction.

SPEAKER_00 3:18:23

Yeah, but by the way, so so I want to I want to use these specific citations because I think it just adds weight to the argument. So that's probably something I got from studying law, that it's always good to have these citations because then you can, it's just if you have something else than even if it's from quote unquote their law books, uh you you can still pin it down and then you can argue about the same terms, it's just not someone's opinion. But what I was coming to, I so black's law first, page uh 108, even the definition of authority is interesting here, because people don't realize probably even this, that authority in black's law is defined as the law for delegation of power by one person to another. So think about even that.

SPEAKER_01 3:19:28

Authority is it authority is it's a delegation, implying that there's there's more than one party is required for to even discuss a question the concept of authority because it uh especially in contracts.

SPEAKER_00 3:19:53

So if you have a contract, you need to have parties. And in contract if they let's put it in a uh social contract perspective where the where the uh assumed authority happens. So if that is a lawful delegation of power, then it's an assumed, assumed authority is an assumed delegation of power, which is exactly what the assumption of regency is. They assumed that the monarch has delegated the powers to the regent because that's what their paperwork says, or that's what they can imply from the paperwork. Even the word authority without the assumed is interesting because it basically reveals the same. Well, I'll find it and I'll send it. I didn't locate it yet, but this was a good one. We really got got to uh and and a bit of a new m new new thing to look at. I I'm sure we'll get a lot more to talk about um when we uh when we uh introduce more stuff to the to these AI models. Yeah. Then they don't change they don't they don't change the reality either, they just help to to argument this. To create the argument.

SPEAKER_03 3:21:43

And I don't I can't do I honestly I don't do anything with AI whatsoever because I just I just don't want to. But but as long as you guys are you're doing it, I man oh man, you know. I'm all over it because I see the value of it, but I just I honestly just don't want to learn anything else. I don't want to learn anymore. I I know it sounds stupid, but I just I'm contemplating how it all connects, and the fact that you're out there putting it all into a place. Hell, I mean, even what's funny is President Trump just released something March 2026 called President Trump's Cyber Strategy for America just this month. So they're using AI for everything, and you know what, as far as I'm concerned, we feed all the the truth into AI, let AI kick out all of this kind of stuff, and then we just use it and say, listen, this is the system you guys are using for the banking, for all the data banks, databases, data, everything. So, okay, we'll just we'll use it. We'll use it like you're using it, and we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_02 3:22:54

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 3:22:55

I like what's happening, you know?

SPEAKER_00 3:22:57

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's it's good, it's getting faster. I think this as this always. Um of course it can be used in bad ways, but it's amazing how quickly when you know when you can make the difference between uh narrative and reality, how quickly you you can you can spot when something is starting to hallucinate.

SPEAKER_01 3:23:24

Yeah, I think so.

SPEAKER_03 3:23:25

I think so. I think so.

SPEAKER_00 3:23:29

Hey, uh there's one uh one thing. If you can stop the recording, like we could maybe um I I want to ask one thing.

SPEAKER_03 3:23:40

Okay, let me stop it right now. Let me see if I can do that.