The/the applicant are not a thing, not an object, not fiction, but spiritually moral, living ones Reasonwesen, in popular parlance [Person] called and subject toen no slavery, no right of servitude, no servitude, servitude or involuntary servitude.

The free Sovereigns of Kininigen dispose of a free and own will and all unlimited inalienable rights. You have aall rights to their name and have these in fullh Scope gesecuret, Contracts with the operating companyn System properly terminated and subject to through the act of emancipation and through theirn own free will, no longer that one foreign person, the Jurisdiction of jus and lex and all the resulting varieties, such as this Maritime and commercial law, admiralty law, dem canon law, one “State law” without statehood etc. etc.

It is impossible for the living to completely discard the living in order to act as fiction. Fiction is always and exclusively animated by what is alive behind it and not the other way around.

By giving notice to the formerly used Names the person in the spelling capitis deminutio maxima and the associated and adhering contracts, as well as the termination of the contracts linked to the identity card and the contracts associated with it, The living, spiritually moral rational beings are not subject to the legal system the fiction and that of the operating system, as a lower onen Legal circle and understanding of law and their legislative, judicial and executive branches and therefore not that one either Responsibility of employees of the Defendant 2) as the POLICE etc.

The operating system of the pyramidal structure, sets as one seemingly independent separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. It will be so the population one supposed impartiality suggests. The pretense of statehood requires voluntary admission and consent of the living, spiritually moral rational being to the goal, as well as the acceptance of the pretended, allegedly state authority to conduct the actions the defendant 2.) to legitimize.

DThe defendants 2.) are the implementing force to secure power for the legislative and judicial branches. She operate as tools for maintaining and enforcing power, for the benefit and protection of the operating systemstems and their beneficiaries and to the detriment of the living, spiritually moral, rational beings, popularly known as [human beings].

By the Fehlen of a statehood, is of the Customary courts suggest “statehood” where none exists. It's exclusively private jurisdiction available, which pursues economic interests and things and people negotiated and thus exclusively the fiction and not the living.

Thism system Defendants 2.) serve as PUBLIC PROSECUTOR and splay ith, through so-called “accusations”, wmoose protect the operating system – their legislature and their “order”, and this one serve. The POLICE employees and the bailiffs implement the resulting orders as so-called “resolutions” and “judgments”.

The legislature creates laws, which the judiciary in the sense the legislature interprets it and the executive implements it as desired. in their actions, all three parties agree each other. This resulting cartel provides an impenetrable protection for the legal opinion of these parties. One real Impartial treatment is not given. This is a breach of the inalienable rights of living, spiritually moral, rational beings.

Separation of powers is the hallmark of a system based on law. It means that one and the same institution does not have different powers at the same time which are assigned to different areas of “state authority”. Consequently, ea lack of separation of powers, a monopoly of powers, because there are no independent control bodies.

This collaboration is a perfectly coordinated control tool, the fiction it manages and its characters. However, the living, spiritually moral rational beings are not persons and are not subject to this system through this self-knowledge, have actively left and rejected it. This is an inviolable and inalienable right of the living that can never be violated.

In judgment number 671011 of the Kininigen Free Arbitration Court wurden the employees of the Judiciary the customary dishes, due to their private nature and the lack of statehood, declared incompetent. This established lack of responsibility for the living, spiritually moral rational being, extends and applies also for all other private companies and their employees in the appearance of statehood, like the POLICE, FEDERAL ARMY, FEDERAL ARMY, CUSTOMS, JUDICIARY, STATEAT-WHALETSHAFT and their as so-called Representative appearing Defendant 2.).

The unequal treatment in customary courts and those acting as servants of a supposed state executive is even discussed on Wikipedia, the information source and encyclopedia generally recognized by the operating system:

[Wikipedia quotes:

Quote Tobias Singelnstein, junior professor at the FU Berlin in the South German newspaper:

“regularly observe what is known in criminological research as 'Wall of silence' or 'esprit de corps': that civil servants generally do not testify against civil servants. If a colleague does testify, he or she must expect negative consequences.”

the “very low” “clearance rate for police attacks”: “Internal investigative bodies are responsible for investigating the incidents – police officers investigate their own colleagues.”

“that institutional proximity – police investigating police – is a problem; Because even then it is the case that colleagues are being investigated and that you are dealing with accused people for whom you are more likely to understand.

“But if you listen to what defense attorneys and individual police officers report, the accusation of resistance is often used to justify police action.” He sees the reason as being that a police officer is allowed to use more force when there is resistance than when there is no resistance would be accomplished.

“[Courts] are accustomed to thinking of police officers as neutral observers. Leaving this perspective is obviously not easy. […] on the other hand [you have] a police officer who is generally very high up in the credibility hierarchy, perhaps also a colleague as a witness. A police officer is not a normal defendant.”

In cases where the legality of the police force used is disputed, there are two interpretations of the process: that of the citizen and that of the police officer. If a citizen files a complaint against the police for assault in office, according to Tobias Singelnstein, “a counter-complaint from the police officers often follows”.

Quote Mirror-Author Carsten Holm:

“Police officers are more conspirators than surgeons and more adamant than soldiers and adhere to the unwritten law of silence when crimes occur within their own ranks.”

Joachim Kersten, professor at the German Police University:

“There is often a knee-jerk defense in the [police] leadership. You stand in front of the officials and say that there is nothing to the allegations, without even knowing anything." "To cover up your own mistakes, to cover up for brawling colleagues and to deny the public any information about them..."

Quote from Nana Heymann in “Die Zeit”

“The alleged offense of resistance “also serves to secure official action: the person being arrested resisted, possibly even physically - this makes it more plausible that the police officer had to use physical force.”

Quote from notary Gerhard Borck:

“In general, the credibility of police officers is now valued by the courts more highly than that of non-uniformed citizens.”

Wikipedia quote end.]

The correctness of this hypothesis, as a fact of this approach, can be deduced from the documented experiences of the sovereigns of Kininigen, as well as the statistics regarding the prosecution of authorities.

A 1998-2001 survey by Amnesty International of individuals working as POLICE found that 25 percent believed that “on occasion it is perfectly acceptable to use more force than permitted. And six out of ten police officers said that serious abuse of violence by colleagues was not always reported or reported.”

[Quote wikipedia:

“According to German law, “police officers” are authorized, within the scope of their police duties, to use physical force within the framework of the regulations on direct coercion and self-defense, whereby the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of arbitrariness must in any case be observed.

In practice, however, police actions may be unlawful, disproportionate, arbitrary or in violation of human rights.”

Quote Amnesty International in the Kurier January 26, 2022

“Allegations of ill-treatment are generally not investigated effectively. Police violence often has no consequences for the perpetrators, i.e. for the police officers.”

“If a complaint is made, those affected must expect a counter-report from the police. “This means that in certain situations those affected can neither assume that the allegations will be effectively investigated nor that the perpetrators will be held accountable. Rather, they must expect a counter-notice with the accusation of defamation.”]

The study by the Austrian Center for Law Enforcement Sciences has shown that allegations of mistreatment in Austria against police officers almost never lead to charges. It is a problem “that police officers investigate their own colleagues”. This leads to conflicts of interest because the officials would cover each other in the proceedings. This basis is the same as that of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The unpublished study reports “at least 12,000 suspected unlawful attacks by police officers every year – five times more than reported. It is officially known that there are at least 2,000 suspected unlawful attacks by police officers on German soil every year, which are dealt with by public prosecutors. Less than two percent of cases go to trial and less than 1 percent end in a conviction. Often the word of the “citizens” stands against that of the “officials”. Further results of the investigation will be presented in September.”

The defendants 2.) as employees of the executive organs, have greater credibility among the employees of the judiciary organs, as customary courts, and their word has more weight. This contradicts the inalienable right to equal treatment and the claim of a living, spiritually moral, rational being to impartiality and a judicial hearing. When statement stands against statement, then the word of the living person who has committed himself to the highest maxims cannot weigh less than that of an individual in a private company who works as a POLICE or similar.

Not only is the unequal treatment before the judiciary a breach of inalienable rights, but also the creation of so-called laws by the legislature, which thereby protects itself and makes this system possible. The possibility of using violence, which is in contradiction to the physical integrity that living, spiritually moral, rational beings are entitled to at all times, is referred to as “direct coercion”.

“Direct coercion” is usually a measure to enforce an “informal measure”, and therefore a follow-up measure. “Direct coercion” constitutes an interference with inalienable rights, integrity and, where applicable, freedom or property rights and is therefore completely and at all times unlawful.

[Quote from Wikipedia:

“Direct coercion” is a legal term that includes the sovereign influence on people or things by means of physical force, means of physical force or weapons by competent and authorized officials and is an essential part and expression of state power.

The principle of proportionality applies in principle and fundamentally. This means that the police may generally only use force in exceptional cases and only if they cannot enforce a police measure in any other way.

“Immediate coercion” is a means of coercion without a suspensive effect.

Physical violence is any direct physical impact of a public official on people or things with or without aids or weapons.

Simple physical violence refers to any physical violence without aids and weapons.”

“The “direct coercion” by “federal service personnel” is regulated in the [Law on direct coercion in the exercise of public authority by federal law enforcement officers]. 

The application of direct coercion outside the territory or jurisdiction of the “federation” is governed by the provisions of the law on direct coercion of the federal state in which the direct coercion is to be applied. In principle, the authorization to intervene for the application of direct coercion does not arise from the respective coercive law, but in particular from the [StPO] or the [Police Laws to Avert Danger] in conjunction with the [Administrative Enforcement Act]”.

The free, living, spiritually moral rational beings are, according to their beliefs and in fact, neither persons nor things. They are therefore not subject to the scope of the fiction of the operating system and this has no application to living things. Consequently, neither direct nor indirect nor any coercion in any form is applicable to free, living, spiritually moral, rational beings and is completely and at all times unlawful.

Accordingly, intrusion into the domicile (rooms inhabited by the living, spiritually moral rational being), the property or the physical area of the living, spiritually moral rational being is not permitted at any time and is therefore prohibited.

The police exercise the “state’s” monopoly on violence. The defendants 2.) as the executive branch, whose task is to maintain “public safety” and “public order”. The lawmaker (the creator of so-called laws) gives it room for interpretation.

The legislature of the operating system deliberately refrains from implementing some laws in detail. This allows the law user (executive and judiciary) to interpret and apply the law as desired in the respective situation. The law therefore only becomes concrete through its application. Common examples are “as good faith and trust require,” “good morals” or “authorization to intervene to avert danger” from the police.

The principle of proportionality imposes a “minimum of intervention” on individuals acting as police, but when this is reached is at the discretion of the police. This discretion always creates a gap between the written law and real action.

The use of physical violence is expressly permitted by the police legislature in the statutes and instructions (“monopoly of violence”) and only a few acts of violence are fundamentally prohibited (executions, torture).

The investigation into unlawful police violence by the KviAPol research group at the Ruhr University Bochum found that in the 3,374 cases they investigated:

“Of these cases, only 13 % criminal proceedings were initiated and of these only 3 % went to court. In total, there were 18 charges and 4 penalty orders. The proceedings initiated resulted in a total of 7 convictions.

The most common evidence was witness statements (74%) and medical reports (63%). In addition, in a significant proportion of the cases (48%) there was also video material: in 38 % of the cases there were private recordings, in 24% there were video recordings from the police. Regarding the available video material, those affected noted in nine cases that it could not be used: 

Six times the police video footage was missing because it was deleted or could not be found, and once nothing could be seen on it. At one point, private video footage was not permitted and at another time, the bystanders who were filming were asked by the police to delete the video. In 9 % of the cases there was no evidence and 3% did not provide any information about the evidence. In the proceedings in which a penalty order or a conviction resulted, there were usually both witness statements (82%) and medical reports (91%). There was also an above-average number of video material available (private: 46%; police: 55%).”

In most areas of the world, there is an identification requirement for individuals working as police officers. No identification requirement for police officers in the Netherlands, Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany. In Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom there is only a partial labeling requirement. This makes it almost impossible to prosecute violent acts committed by individuals behind the police label, which seems to be intentional.

[Quote wikipedia:

“Assaults on the part of the police officers deployed” were discontinued because the police officers “could not be individualized”.

In another case, the public prosecutor's office found "that there was excessive force during the operation, during which the police officers were masked. This (in combination with the lack of identification) meant that the suspected perpetrators could not be identified.”]

93 percent of investigations against police officers were stopped. Very few victims of police violence, nine percent, even reported the crime.

In most cases, as a precautionary measure and to conceal what actually happened, the victim of police violence is slandered through accusations and is subsequently subjected to economic, social and societal “punishment”. Video evidence, witness statements and facts are not evaluated in favor of the victim; the victim is judged in a gang-like manner without justice being served.

[Quote: Police spokesman Thilo Cablitz at the request of the German Press Agency.

““Immediate coercion” is violence, violence hurts, violence hurts, violence looks violent,” ““Immediate coercion” even with all its images is still part of our legal system.”

“The public prosecutor’s office and the police work in the same camp,” he says. The public prosecutor's office is dependent on the police, for example when it comes to investigative work. This makes it harder to believe that officials would act unlawfully. Prosecutors who investigate the police, he says, also quickly become unpopular.”]

Thus, the POLICE and all defendants 2.) are organs of the operating system with the task of ensuring the power of the ruling class, if necessary with violence and under the appearance of the rule of law. The term “rule of law” was and is a colorful term that does not correspond to the actual balance of power and is used in isolation from reality.

All there as employees of the Defendant 2.) occurring individuals and employees employed under other names of their companies, are liable for your orders, resolutions, judgments and actions, always fully and unlimitedly private, da through your actions and instructions living, spiritually moral, rational beings and/or their property come to harm. 

The Name or a designation, is for the Liability is irrelevant because it is always the living thing behind a name that commits the crime. It is not a name that is injured and damaged, but rather the living thing behind the name and not the fiction, especially when it comes to sovereigns of Kininigen, the living, spiritually moral, rational beings who are subject to inalienable rights.

Also one Avoidance or postponement or withdrawal of liability through obfuscation, hiding behind so-called job titles, through the Not bIdentification of those responsible and references to so-called instructions as “laws”, Sync and corrections by n17t01 not possible. Injustice remains injustice, regardless of the name or designation this happens.

It's not the name that commits one Act, but the being behind the name and/or job title located. Neither one Change of a name or hiding a name to avoid liability, exempt from the to be worn Responsibility for actions committed, nor can one be aware of the consequences and consequences, from the resulting crime. 

Everyone who orders is liable for his orders, just as the person who executes them is liable for carrying out the act as ordered. Manipulation to carry out an act is just as serious as the act itself himself. The attempt to evade the consequences of liability through an cloak of reprimandit on instructions, is not possible. Dhe [human] behind every name, has as a Vreasongifted Wto act in accordance with the spiritual and moral obligation that each one hasn is peculiar to these beings.

Die inalienable rights, which a Sovereign of Kininigen, as free individual as [human] is subject to at all times, secure his rights to the full extent at all times. These living, spiritually moral, rational beings have been proven through the cancellation of contracts and Kininigen's manifesto of faith as well as the boundaries of the Kininigen Autonomous Land Plain, not about people and not about things.

Consequently can neither Customary courts hear the concerns of living, spiritually moral, rational beings, nor the defendants 2.) act as vicarious agents, as this is a completely different jurisdiction. HabitBuilders are allowed to negotiate whatever they want and their so-called executive branch of the defendant 2.) appear as they wish, as long as it is within their jurisdiction, such as Bexample about fictional matters and fictional jurisdictions, by disclosing all facts to the other party.

Ssoon however a UIncursion takes place, from their jurisdiction of “dead” things, into the realm of Leven, is the Financial support ait damagesit in unlimited amounts absolutely legitimate and completely possible be invoked.

Since there is no statehood of the organs of the operating system, a legally valid contract is absolutely necessary for an interaction between these and the defendant 2.) with the living, spiritually moral rational being.

Contracts which are based on deception, concealment of parts or fraud, or which are at the expense and disadvantage of others/third parties, are invalid and void from the outset. Manipulation, deception, blackmail, coercion and disregard for the free will of living, spiritually moral, rational beings in contracts with the customary courts are not permitted and therefore do not form a legally valid contractual basis. Everything that arises from this basis as resolutions, orders and judgments is ex tunc invalid and has no legal force whatsoever.

A contract that is... rshould be viewed as genuine, must be the one specified by Kininigen characteristics fulfill and requires full disclosure. Failure to disclose all facts Sync and corrections by n17t01 a form of fraudulent collusion and violates against the obligation of good faith. Contracts are not enforceable or valid if they are made under duress, misrepresentation, to the detriment of third parties, concealment of “hidden contracts” or fraud signed became. 

Any claim of “tacit agreement” to the Terms that have not been disclosed will be considered a deception. “nemo existimandus est dixisse, quod non mente agitaverit”, - waiver of rights may not be assumed unless other facts and justified and signed declarations are presented. Contract law is an inalienable right. Intervention in the design of the contract can only take place if the absolutely necessary, complete proof of being a party to the contract has been provided. Stating legal texts is not proof.

In contracts between living, spiritually moral, rational beings as sovereigns, the honorable word given of their own free will applies.

As soon as the living thing has recognized itself as what it is in its origin - the living thing, eternally endowed with inalienable rights, and has taken active, verifiable steps at least three times to leave the fiction, the living thing remains from at this point in time to also in dem Legal circle of the living.

WWater always remains water, no matter what form it is poured into. A sovereign who, driven by nature's impulse to survive, applies for an identity card or the system tries to pull it back onto its playing field through deception and/or coercion Sync and corrections by n17t01 and stays still sovereign and living, spiritually moral rational being under the protection of inalienable rights and in the status of free and living. He doesn't become a person.

Wie a video game, stayt the player is unaffected by the effects on the character. According to the maxim, that Neveryone should follow this Hhigher judge and not that Hhigher after that NEither way, a waiver of rights by the sovereign cannot be assumed. The use of parts of the system such as bank accounts, provision of one's needs such as electricity, water, "pension" etc., which are designed to keep living things prisoner in the system construct, is also completely legitimate and lawful and does not constitute an admission, as an open use is denied and prevented by created structures.

Anything that violates justice and the inalienable rights of living, spiritually moral, rational beings is not valid. 

At the same time, a contract is illegal and invalid even if the majority of the beings of a country enter into a contract with their government to encourage all kinds of injustice and the destruction of natural rights, even if the majority agrees to it . 

Because this not only violates the natural rights of those who do not agree to it, but also because it undermines the inalienable rights and therefore there is no longer a reliable legal basis under which a contract could be undermined.

Free will and the inalienable rights and the faith of living, spiritually moral, rational beings must always be respected, respected, preserved and protected at all times and without exception.

The arbitral tribunal's decision is final and enforceable.