A brief history of sovereignty
Courage is the beginning of action,
Lucky at the end
Once upon a time there was a young man. He was heartbroken and wanted to cry to his best friend at the time. But this had other plans with the suffering young man and recommended him to participate in a commercial course to distract himself. The name of the then suffering young man is "Nobody".
And so it happened that in the spring of 2015, Nobody embarked on his very first Odyssey. He was to get to know the world in which he lives from a completely different perspective. Nobody was visibly overwhelmed with the individual topics. His synapses were every time proverbial on the glow, because his worldview, in which he grew up, was downright in its entirety and complexity, questioned.
For the first ten months, it felt like he only understood "station". Questions upon questions plagued him day in and day out, to which he found no answer.
like this one, for example:
"...What? I am not a person but a spiritually moral being of flesh and blood?"
"...prove to me that you are a person..."
"...What's the noun phrase for masculine? - Man! Then why is it written as a gentleman?..."
"...What's the noun phrase for female? - Woman! Then why is a woman written on?..."
"...How? We live in a company and not a state?... yes and when I look at an atlas what do I see? States! What do they tell me..."
...that the supposed states in an atlas are merely trade zones defined by the outer boundaries of other neighboring economic areas?"
For this, Niemand still lacked the practical experience and the necessary maturity that he was yet to attain. After a good ten months of the commercial course, Niemand realized that he was living in a world full of deceptions, in which the main thing is to deprive us living, spiritually moral beings of our inalienable rights and to enslave us wherever possible. But more about that later.
that changed lives
No one also found topics that captured all his interest and he pursued those topics with all his passion. These topics are to this day:
The Curse of Canaan
Contract law and principles of contract law
and probably the most important topic of all:
The year is 2018, no one has already had some success in using their newly learned knowledge. With the necessary confidence and skill, he set out on a journey to find out who the owner, owner and Name holder is the one that was given to him at birth?! And who is better suited than the origin, where all the mischief began, at the registry office. The first letter to the chief registrar, is written as follows:
The names in the following letter have been substituted to protect the identities of those actually involved.
The entry of the name "MUSTERMANN MAX" was initiated by the responsible institution by means of birth notification, approved and authorized by parties involved, but not by the undersigned himself. The original entry is therefore in pending unresolved status.
The entry results in the creation of a person, identified by the main entry in the birth register with the number 74/1977, with the omission of all essential characteristics that reveal the existence of a spiritual, moral, living entity.
This was done entirely without authorization by the undersigned and without prior explanation of all the advantages and disadvantages resulting from this.
Just as pendingly unsettled, is the doubtless assignment of the signer, as a spiritual moral being to the created person.
By what administrative act can an adoption of the name "MUSTERMANN MAX" be proved ? Where is the proof that I am a party to this person ?
This state of affairs the undersigned wishes to put an end to, by accepting without doubt the birth entry for the name "MUSTERMANN, MAX", by confirming the main entry by means of an appropriate administrative act.
Please let me know a suitable date and place where and when this is to be done within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If you do not provide a suitable administrative act for the conformation, I note that there is no participation of the signatory to this person, because the undoubted signature as a sign of the declaration of intent and acceptance of the name does not exist!
For further communication I establish my own name "N i e m a n d" until final clarification!
My request is NOT to be understood as a request for a new birth certificate to be sent with a name change, but I am interested in a final clarification within 90 days.
This declaration of intent was written to the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God.
Is this letter clear in its message, understandable and comprehensible? - Yes it is!
The reply letter from the relevant registry office in this case has two key messages.
The first key statement relates to allegedly not knowing what is wanted, although it is clearly communicated and N i e m a n d continued to be written to by old name, although the sender is N i e m a n d .
The registrar even asked to describe again as clearly and exactly as possible what exactly was wanted.
Here is the second letter to the same registrar, the names have been substituted to protect the identity of those involved:
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to respond in my, not everyday, request.
A name is, according to current scientific research, an access index to a set of information about an individual (spiritual moral being of flesh and blood). Names are thus information assigned to a person, an object, an organizational unit (for example, a company) or a concept, which is intended to serve identification and individualization (function of name clarity).
Along with this, it would be very important for me to know how the exact and unique name usage should look like. The following possibilities are available:
MUSTERMANN MAX (capitis deminutio maxima)
MUSTERMANN Max (capitis deminutio media)
Mustermann, Max (capitis deminutio minima)
mustermann, max (capitis sin deminutio)
Each possibility indicates a corresponding status (capitis):
Maximum Status reduction
Medial Status reduction
Minimum Status reduction
None Status reduction
In very many cultures, human dignity is inviolable; to respect and honour it is the task of every state authority. According to my dignity and conscience, as a sign of my individuality and Alleinstellungsmerkmales, I want to give myself my own name.
Am I, as the writer of this letter, an object?
No, I'm not! And I am also not aware that I have lost all rights!
Am I a person? "And God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; and made them male and female." (Genesis verse 27)
Consequently logically continued, there can only be a participation in this name! If a participation in this name is tacitly assumed, then I request a change of name from "MUSTERMANN MAX" to "mustermann, max", according to my dignity and conscience.
If this is not possible, the logical conclusion that follows is that I cannot be a party to the person "MUSTERMANN MAX"! Because only the owner has the right to regulate the form. In this case I ask the registrar for a power of attorney, to give me with my self given Namen "N i e m a n d" as authorized representative to act for the person "MUSTERMANN MAX" and to be allowed to do so.
If this simple example still creates confusion for you, let me explain it again with a simple example.
Let's say I have a black Mercedes VITO. Am I allowed to change the exterior shape of this vehicle? - Yes, I am allowed to, because the automobile belongs to me and I can change it. Propertys relationship even through the purchase contract. So I can, without anyoneen to have to ask permission, change the shape and color of the car.
Let's take you as a registrar, you have a black Audi A8. May I drive this Audi on my own authority or change its exterior? - No, I am not allowed to do that, because the Audi is not my property, nor have I been given the authority to do so. If I did that, it would mean I was taking something I'm not allowed to. I believe such an offence is a criminal offence.
Now please replace the Audi A8 with the term "MUSTERMANN MAX". Is now for you, my request, logically plausible comprehensible ?
With the compliments of
What did not come in response was the change of name from "MUSTERMANN MAX" to "mustermann, max". There was also no clear proof that I am a party and there was also no power of attorney that I may continue to use the old name with my new name.
What came, however, is a very contradictory answer, in which I was assured that the Name IS my property but I cannot change it because it is subject to certain laws and rules.
This statement by the registrar is entirely correct, because. he cannot and must not say:
a) since your producers did not request the addition of "All rights to the name reserved" when registering the name, we have secured the rights to this name!
b) You use the name illegally that's why we regulate you constantly everywhere and charge such high user fees in the form of taxes.
c) why do you use the name if you have no clear proof of ownership??
Dear reader of this article, if you still think you own your name as property, here's a homework assignment for you:
What administrative act can you use to prove that you are the author or that your producers secured the rights to your name when they registered it?
If it's your name, then yes you could license it because the state uses it since it's yours according to you.
Go down to the Civic Center and tell them you know that only the Owner the form may regulate. Since you will unequivocally agree that the name is me, I hereby instruct you to change the name, in accordance with my inalienable rights, in keeping with my dignity, from capitis deminutio maxima, to capitis sin deminutio.
In addition, I would like to inform you that §17 HGB does not apply to me because the name is my property.
If the name is really your property, the change will be made.
Have you considered, maybe the "state" is regulating you for using the name illegally?
Who has the title document on your name?
Ask the Civic Center: Who is the owner, who is the possessor and who is the holder of "YOUR NAME". and by what administrative act can the ownership, possession and holder be clearly proven??? Maybe it is clearer now?
That's why you can't be the beneficiary of some collateral account. Logic alone should show you that the "authorities" have never done anything in the sense of the spiritually moral being.
Somewhere in this whole system there is surely a beneficiary - probably behind the walls of the Vatican - where he then passes it on.
In commerce, they teach you to hold the person at arm's length. How do you hold something at arm's length? To hold something at arm's length, 2 constants are needed. Which is the correct way a) or b) ?
a) The letterhead reads MAX MUSTERMANN. In the further course of the letter a signatory is mentioned. The receiver, sees in the letterhead a MAX MUSTERMANN and reads, the signer. Question: Is MAX MUSTERMANN = the signer for the recipient?
b) In the letterhead is your new name, as authorized representative for the old name and in the further course of the letter a signer is named. Question: Is for the recipient of the letter "The signer" = "The new name" ? Which also legitimately holds the person "old name" at arm's length ??
And exactly this essential information is not taught by commerce and its course instructors. One has to ask oneself, is it the greed for the course fees or are the course instructors intentionally trying to pass on this quite important information wrongly?!
the inalienable rights
My second odyssey
In December of 2018, I reported the passport and ID card lost and ordered new documents in the same move. When I signed qualified, "i.A. surname, call name a.R.", they refused to give me this signature and asked me for an unqualified signature "Family Name, Call Name"
When I asked why and what the legal basis is, came squishy explanations, that it would be just so and referred (seriously now!) to an article on Wikipedia, in which one opened this and read out.
However, if it is my name, why can someone else regulate and determine how I have to sign, why do I have to sign the same way I signed last time?
Dear reader, the answer is simple and you probably won't like it. What the Civic Centre has asked me to do is correct, because the name does not belong to me. I was merely the owner, but never in my life have I owned the name. If I were the owner of the name, then the Civic Centre would have to accept my instructions.
Everyone who has an identity card is only the holder and not the owner of the name!
For me, the situation was now simple. Without my qualified signature, as an authorized representative of the name, I also did not want to have any identification documents. The company Civic Center has tolerated this circumstance until the spring of the following year and then I got from the beginning of March, offers with enforcement measures, if I do not go voluntarily, in the involuntary servitude (slavery).
So and now it gets really interesting!!!
I then went to the civic centre of my choice and wanted to speak to the main inalienable rights officer. It was important for me to know whether my inalienable rights would be recognised, upheld and respected when I applied for an identity card and/or passport.
The dialog at the first switch went as follows:
Me: "Good afternoon. I am looking for the principal officer of the inalienable rights. Where can I find him?"
Employee of the Civic Center Company: Facial expression frozen, after a brief pause, "I didn't hear them correctly. Can you please repeat the question?"
Me: "Very gladly. I'm looking for, (pause) The principal (pause), for (pause) the (pause) un-ver-äu-er-lichen rights.
Where can I find him or her?" I spoke these words understandably clear and slower than the first time.
Employee of the Civic Center Company: "Äaahm.... can you please repeat the question again? I probably didn't understand you correctly."
Me: "I'm looking for. (Pause) The principal (pause) for (pause) the (pause) un-ver-erable rights. Where can I find him or her?"
Employee of the Civic Center Company: "What kind of rights are they? What do they want from this?"
Me: "I am looking for. (pause) The principal (pause) for (pause) the (pause) un-ver-ger-er-lichen rights, popularly known as human rights. Where can I find him or her? I want to know if my inalienable rights, despite my application for an identity card, are thereby preserved and respected!"
Employee of the Civic Center Company: visibly and overwhelmed by the situation: "I'll ask the department head..."
After about 3 minutes the head of department came and I asked my question a fifth time. He answered promptly and said: "You are in the wrong place. Check with the building next door, they know."
When I arrived at the annex and asked my question, the lady at the reception was also visibly irritated and beyond all measure, overwhelmed with a simple and straightforward question: "Where in your house can I find the chief officer of inalienable rights, popularly known as human rights?"
The lady at the front desk picked up the phone and first had to find out what inalienable rights and human rights are, SHE DIDN'T KNOW!
After now about 20min in the civic center and city hall, which I had visited, I have found no one who knew what inalienable rights are, let alone was qualified enough to explain to me whether my rights as a man, thereby remain protected. Not even the legal department of the city hall could help me.
A visit to the Lord Mayor is an experience you should make yourself. The secretaries didn't know what I was asking and the Lord Mayor was visibly overwhelmed to give me a proper correct answer. In the end I was told to ask at the local court.
The testimony from the district court on the same day: "...in the whole House they will find no one competent or qualified enough for the inalienable rights and human rights.
We have exclusive jurisdiction over commercial interests..."
Statement District Court:
"We are solely responsible for commercial interests."
What the spokesperson for the district court has clearly and unequivocally expressed here is:
Matters from us People, cannot be managed here, because no one is qualified enough to recognize men and women. Only economic interests are represented.
In other words, you, as a living, spiritually moral being of reason, go to the district court and they see you only as their fictitious construct, but want information from the living.
I think that's very, very schizophrenic behavior, don't you? - Rhetorical question.
The next day I visited the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, which at the time had advertised on their website that they were monitoring and directing the implementation of Article 1, of the Basic Law.
What do you think, dear reader, was the reaction I was confronted with when I asked: "Where can I find the main person responsible for the inalienable rights, also known as human rights? Ideally, the person has handed in his identity card, because that would massively increase his credibility."
I was diplomatically but politely thrown out, with no response.
Emails went out to
A day later, I emailed each:
- The Federal Constitutional Court Karlsruhe
- The Stuttgart Regional Council
- The Karlsruhe Regional Council
- To Berlin
- Federal Ministry of Justice in Bonn
– Court of Justice in The Hague
and because I was in a good mood,
to the UN
I am in desperate search of the principal of inalienable rights. Where do I find this one?
At December 10, 2019 the following book is out:
Author: Michael Lysander Fremuth, Menschenrechte Grundlagen und Dokumente, Pages: 713, Place of publication: Bonn, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (https://www.bpb.de) Order number: 10511, ISBN 978-3-7425-0511-8 .
Under "1.5 Inalienability of human rights" Page 25, it states:
"The inalienability of human rights means that one does not have to prove oneself worthy of them and that - unlike many other subjective rights - one cannot lose them, forfeit them or in principle renounce them. Human rights cannot be taken away either. ..."
If I apply for an identity card or passport, what is my legal status and will my inalienable, non-negotiable rights be preserved, recognised and respected? Or do I lose them and become, in purely legal terms, a thing under care ?
I thank you in advance for your clear unequivocal answer.
2 days later
a single response
an email as a reply from the Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, in which they told me:
"...we are sorry, however, we are unable to provide you with satisfactory information regarding your search request..."
Love Commercial course instructors among you. I have a direct question:
Which of your lessons, explains to the seeker that commercialism does not enable liberation from involuntary servitude, but rather prolongs and in some cases exacerbates suffering?
The legitimate conclusions that sprout up in me are:
To the Commercial Teachers Circle.
You guys are really ill prepared and don't even know what you are teaching or NOT teaching people;
You will be used purposefully to intercept the most stubborn and send them in the not-really-right direction;
commerce is just another business model and the "greed" for the Euros, which you then tell in class have no value, is greater than the adventure into sovereignty?
While the most commercial courses and self-proclaimed commercialists push the knowledge back and forth and rework it, are with Kininigen the living, spiritually moral beings of reason in their creative power, to completely new, unique solutions to create.
This can ensure purity, correctness and sovereignty for each individual. For the Sovereign NEVER enters into a debt relationship.
TO BE CONTINUED ....
Like our name
and used by the operating system surrounding us to keep us in slave status can be read here.
and what can free us from it
It is hereby noted that all rights are reserved to everything found on this site and subject to the order of the Decided Terms of Ama-gi koru-E Kininigen. If someone distributes our knowledge, it would be honourable if he also names the source of this knowledge, which has not been found anywhere else, and does not bring it into the world as his own knowledge in order to enrich his status with it.
Otherwise, we are grateful for the distribution of this knowledge, in the sense of every being.