The problem I have with sovereigns is not that I dis-believe their research, but it seems counter productive to ask a part of the corrupt system(a judge) to acknowledge that you are correct and the system is wrong. The system will never acknowledge this as it is the system's way of maintaining itself.
If the system truly has no authority over an individual, then why submit to its authority by going to court in the first place. It would seem that by going to court, one acknowledges that the court has authority over the individual; isn't this an act of acquiescence? Also, if the court, or DA, or whomever doesn't have authority over the individual, then why address their letters at all? Addressing their letters, would seem to be the very first step in acquiescence, with the second step -going to court- being the last step where one, in a court of law, acknowledges before those present that the individual accepts the court as a superior authority. This is the last thing an actual sovereign would do.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: