9 Comments

This whole idea of someone having sovereignty over my body is the big issue these days.

WHO thinks that their minions can vote away our personal sovereignty.

And same with these illegal laws bolstered by the judiciary.

Well legalese away, but doesn't make it so.

What a bunch of snake oil criminals we have trying to control us.

And some citizens are still trusting of the bought globalist cabal.

Expand full comment

Some of the many meanings for "Sovereign" given by the Oxford english Dictionary are:

1a. One who has supremacy or rank above, or authority over, others; a superior; a ruler, governor, lord, or master (of persons, etc.). Frequently applied to the Deity in relation to created things. In later use suggestive of sense A. 2a.

†d. A free citizen or voter of America. U.S. Obsolete.

2a. The recognized supreme ruler of a people or country under monarchical government; a monarch; a king or queen.

4b. A British gold coin of the (nominal) value of one pound.

†5. A variety of pear.

I really like number 5. (Though JFK's claim to be a jam doughnut was more inspiring)

Expand full comment

I confess I stopped reading the Act after the first bit.

("The Act" like in a play or script , someone playing sovereign.)

A royal UK poohbear says she is sovereign over you( you who is sovereign over yourself) & also calls her legalese gibberish the "law" .

Does the (now dead) UK poohbear lawful jurisdiction in a foreign land over human beings. No.

"NZ: a colony of NSW" ..yeah I can see why they didn't use that not very PC.

This dead UK poohbear did not and does not represent me (and is not sovereign over me) nor does the govt represent me how could it?

NZ doesn't have a constitution and the Bank of England's Crown NZ Govt is illegitimate.

Expand full comment

My point is that it's not the Queen who is the Sovereign (she is Regina who acts for the Sovereign) but that it is us.

NZ was a colony of NSW so I guess this is the separation document in some respects.

I agree that this current Government is not acting in our interests, nor it seems is the Queen, but I suspect that these can both be rectified without going to a civil war.

Expand full comment

Yeah I got that .

The Crown's Acts are so insane they are comical, it is sad they are believed and that authority ( and sovereignty )is wrongly given away to a false god the legal fiction REGINA.

CROWN-REGINA doesn't act for me( or represent me and I'm not a legal fiction, a person).

How can Govt( or the Queen) that acts in the interests of central banksters ever be rectified?

They seem to want a civil war( under divide and conquer).

I agree war has never solved anything and is a( profitable) tool for the Oligarchy, War is hate in action.

I dont believe the land NZ ever was/is a "colony of NSW" , though the govt would have you believe it.

Expand full comment

Not sure if it helps, but the “Anno decimo quinto et decimo sexto Victoriæ Reginæ”

Translates simply as “In the fifteenth and sixteenth year of Queen Victoria”.

Latin cases: "anno" is the ablative of "annus", so "in the year" and "Victoriæ Reginæ" the genitive of "Victoria Regina", so "of Queen Victoria".

Expand full comment

I'm intrigued by the LXXII as well. I guess that just means v.72?

That's quite a few versions if so though.

Expand full comment

I expect CAP. is short for "Capitulum" = Chapter, so "Chapter 72"

Expand full comment

Ah thanks.

Expand full comment