![‘Sovereign citizen’ arrested after stops in Hartford [VT] and Lebanon [NH] (This one’s interesting because it’s a written description from the officer’s viewpoint, rather than a video.)](https://external-preview.redd.it/ieA20ce0ChNMxGi4FXiEnm_akMf6uuHe3pAxHfUHnYs.png?width=140&height=130&auto=webp&s=39372ca9e274de428c1e1a63c5914bedbccd1c72)
Hat tip to a Queen Romana follower for finding this gem. It’s a short video on Facebook that requires a FB login. I’ll summarize it.
An unidentified speaker says that seedless watermelons “lead us to infertility.” They use antibiotics to make a seedless hybrid. Why does Monsanto want to get rid of seeds? Points to the word “cancer” on the cover of a book about the wonders of vitamin B-17 (the supposed cancer cure obtained from apricot seeds).
How do you counter this? Seeds. Watermelon, apricot, cherry, plum, apple seeds. “An apple a day keeps the doctor away. You see why everything’s seedless Eat your seeded fruit.”
[The speaker did not explain how Monsanto is involved in breeding seedless watermelons or how Monsanto will profit from all of us getting cancer. I guess that we are supposed to take that for granted since Monsanto is, as we all know, the epitome of evil.]
Another guru website. Apparently former Canadian Muriel Biggs. I remember her back over a decade ago in Alberta.
Obviously she's a devotee of David-Wynn: Miller's Quantum Syntax Grammar.
But check out the cookie permission notices!
They're written in Millerese/Gibberese!
If you want more pain and suffering, the website is here.
It's not written in proper Millerese/Gibberese, but instead a kind of largely readable patois. That too is kind of neat. All the formatting, some of the comprehensibility.
I also enjoy how Muriel explains that money is worthless, but she does earn the value you pay her for the work she puts into your education:
>[The fiction-grammar-paper-money, fractional-currency/money-coupons, stamps, coins, tokens have zero value and are considered worthless in the quantum-grammar-now-space of the CHIEF: Russell-Jay: Gould's performances. Our work earning this money is not worthless.]
Ok! It's "sweat equity" then!
Folks, ready for a fun ride?
A UK pseudolaw outfit, the "Peacekeepers Foundation" solicited donations to contest: Prove UK law is binding. Collected £23,665 from customers/supporters.
Hodder consults LLM, puts together a valid answer. Submits that - gimme the money!
Peacekeepers Foundation welches.
UK court confirms award.
And the decision is here: Hodder v Peacekeepers Foundation, [2026] EWCC 37.
Here’s the text of “The Challenge”:
>"5 figures now for a simple piece of paper produced by parliament where it says parliament can do whatever it wants!!! Show us parliament can impose its will on any individual without a binding obligation entered into by freewill [sic]", followed by a smile emoji.
Yeah, not so literate. But, really, what did you expect?
The UK court decision itself is lengthy and has basically nothing to do about pseudolaw. Instead it’s a question of whether a contract was formed or not between the Peacekeepers Foundation (offeror) and Hodder (acceptor). So it’s classic contract theory. Was there a meeting of minds? What did the parties intend? Attempts by the Peacekeepers to use weasel language get rejected. It’s like a classic law-school exam question.
There’s basically almost no discussion of whether or not UK law is binding without consent because ... well, it’s a UK court. Duh.
As the quoted passage indicates, Judge Blitz of the Court of Bath (the names in this decision are great) doesn’t bother to even address the pseudolaw aspect. He points to Meads v Meads, “complete legal nonsense”, and gets on to the business of contract formation and other technical aspects. Y’know, real law.
One of which is the Peacekeepers Foundation website includes this disclaimer:
>the website provided no goods or services, contained no offers or invitations to treat, and was not intended to create legal relationships
So, in effect, the Peacekeepers make a contract offer, then elsewhere say “these are not the offers you are looking for”. And no, that doesn’t work.
There’s other classic contract law technicalities, intent to bargain and create binding relationships, invocation of the “donate us money for the challenge” and its implications. Fun stuff.
Judge Blitz concludes there isn’t even an issue for trial, and so orders summary judgment. Pay up, Peacekeepers. Right now. Then at the tail end (paragraphs 65 – there’s four of them) basically says that the Peacekeepers pseudolaw stuff is wrong, they’d certainly lose:
>... To the extent that the Defendant suggests that Parliament's inherent ability to legislate is somehow limited due to defects in its constitutional position, this is pseudo-legal nonsense with no prospect whatsoever of succeeding at trial.
>... the Defendant's starting point from which all their arguments in this regard flow is a simple refusal to accept, at least without qualification, the legislative authority of Parliament. The Defendant attempts to explain this wholly unarguable position with reference to a variety of legal principles such as agency, equity, trusts and fiduciary relationships, yet the 'explanation' discloses no actual legal knowledge of the content of such principles. It follows that any opposition to the claim on this basis would have been wholly unarguable and not have any, let alone any real, prospect of success. ...
>Had I been required to decide the matter on this basis, I would have granted summary judgment for these reasons also.
Great fun! Whether Hodder will collect, who is to say? But I can’t think of another instance where someone got a court judgment for money from a pseudolaw promoter.
Something I find extraordinarily neat is how conspiratorial thinking links cause and effect.
See the attached message I received "on some other social media platform" in response to something I wrote. I don't know this individual nor am I exactly certain what he's trying to convey.
But the implications are fun. "Bouvier" and "Black" almost certainly relate to old US-sourced legal dictionaries, "A Law Dictionary" by John Bouvier and "Black's Law Dictionary". Incidentally, there's a broad school of Sovereign Citizen thinking that Black's is the corrupt version, so you should rely on Bouvier's.
According to our friend, some hidden hand in the 1830s allegedly manipulated definitions in two legal dictionaries. That's how you change the law - by changing legal dictionaries. Since, apparently, dictionaries define law.
That, then, supported or created a "judicial monarchy". I'm not confident I understand what a judicial monarchy might be, since the judiciary isn't a hereditary system. Maybe the writer is trying to convey that the judges now operated like kings? Well, in Canada, it's certainly moved in that direction.
Y'know, there's such an intriguing gnostic aspect to all this, to pseudolaw in general. You can twist existence and government structure into something new by altering dictionary definitions. Orwell's "NewSpeak" has nothing on these people.
Dictionaries, man! They're the pillars of reality!
Anyways, I didn't look up the definitions of "administration" and "association" in 200 year old US law dictionaries to see what naughtiness was going on back then. But... if I might be so bold. If the US's two most prominent law dictionaries did change their definitions for two words, that might be because a leading court in the US had made a legal finding that "administration" and "association" meant X but now means Y.
As a vaguely related aside, I used to work in the same courthouse as Justice Jean Côté, formerly of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who is also the author of "Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949" off Juribiler, which is literally a book of word definitions according to the Supreme Court of Canada. So ... like legal reality defined by words.
I kinda want to track Jean down and see whether he was approached by agents of The Conspiracy to subtly manipulate his dictionary, and Alter The Law from the Words Out.
Tee hee hee.
He'd look at me like I'm a weirdo. Which I am.
"Corporate state employees" have been illegally requiring vehicle registration & drivers licenses.
>This bill restates the “right to travel” and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide at no cost to all noncommercial automobile and noncommercial conveyance owners a decal and identification card that state the holder is exempt from registering his or her automobile or other private conveyance under the superior authority of Section 9109 of the California Commercial Code, which provides exemption for non-taxable “Consumer Goods.” The bill also repeals requirements for certain travelers or drivers to acquire noncommercial driver’s licenses.
<snip>
>This bill repeals laws requiring a driver’s license for all non-commercial drivers and the registration requirement for all non-commercial vehicles and conveyances, as well as requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue non-commercial automobile owners a vehicle decal stating the vehicle is exempt from registration and a photo identification card, both at no cost. Vehicles will also no longer require an annual smog inspection.
I am not going to give him SEO points. Remove the XXX to make the link work. You have to scroll past a big white space to get to the actual passports
https://www.XXXtheamnestycoalition.org/plates-and-passports
Only $185. He accepts, PayPal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and shop. No credit cards or negotiable instruments.
There are lots of rules you must obey in order to get one, including not currently having a drivers license, not even an expired one. You must have read his book, which you can buy on Amazon.You must promise to never establish residency anywhere, not even by enrolling your kids in public school. “This goes for non-whites too”. Violating this places your diplomatic immunity at risk.
From his Facebook page. BTW, he got the date of California statehood wrong. It was 1850, not 1849. He must have delegated fact checking to one of his non-licensed law clerks who missed the error. (It’s correct to call it the 1849 Constitution, as that’s the year voters ratified it.)
>New section added to W&W Q&A page that i think you guys will find interesting:
>As white citizens of your respective States, it is obvious how that changes your relationship to the Federal Constitution. But how does it change your relationship with your State Constitution?
>This is a PHENOMENAL question. Thank you for asking it.
>Brandon is a citizen of California, which has two Constitutions: one from 1849 when it first became a State of the Union and one from 1879, after the advent of the 14th Amendment.
>The 1849 Constitution was impossible to find online so I went to the big law library in downtown Los Angeles and got a copy. Here is a link to pull up so you can compare it to the 1879 version (which is easy to find online):[link to his page redacted. I can’t believe a brilliant legal scholar like BJW couldn’t find the 1849 version online. It’s all over the place. Here, for example]
>So you can see when it comes to voting in Article II, Section 1, they changed the term “white male citizen of the United States” to “native male citizen of the United States.” But the main issue there is that the term “citizen of the United States” massively changed with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment. So this is quite confusing as to what they are referring to.
>One of the most alarming differences is actually in Article XII of the 1879 version: this entire section about corporations and the allowing of corporations to sue and be sued and be treated like natural persons. This is entirely inapplicable to the State citizen class (corporations were never added in as State citizens), as already covered in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court 1869).
>Article I, Section 17 is so strange in the 1879 version… take a look:
>Foreigners of the white race or of African descent, eligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, while bona fide residents of this State, shall have the same rights in respect to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, transmission, and inheritance of property as native-born citizens.
>I’m not even sure what to make of that… it almost seems to make sense. But that terminology is the terminology from the Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment. But this clearly shows a separation between white citizens of the State and resident citizens of the United States.
>Now compare that above quote to Article I, Section 21 of the 1879 Constitution:
>No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revolted, or repealed by the Legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.
>This almost seems to say “all non-whites of all classes shall be the same and there shall be no sub classes amongst the non-whites. All non-whites shall be equal in the eyes of the law.” I don’t know how else to look at this because this is essentially the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in text form, which had absolutely nothing to do with the white citizens of the State.
>As far as I can tell, the 1849 Constitution is for white citizens of the States and the 1879 Constitution is for the non-whites and corporations. I don’t see how it could be any other way.
Completely unworkable and unenforceable, of course, and contains a lot of nonsense, but at least it’s not about something ludicrous that no one cares about, like mandating hemp farming or initiating intergalactic treaties. Like most recent decrees, this was probably written with AI.
Divina Anima 5, 0036 [May 30, 2026]
Protection of The People's Data: Prohibition Against Sale, Transfer, or Commercialization of Personal Information
Note: HRM Queen Romana Didulo The First reading is the official issuance of this decree
Protection of The People's Data and Prohibition Against the Sale, Transfer, or Commercialization of Personal Information.
By the authority vested in me under
Natural Law I AM Her Royal Majesty Queen Romana Didulo The First, Queen and Commander-in-Chief of The Kingdom of Canada and The World, Commander-in-Chief of The United Armies of Earth, Living Crown and Custodian of Earth and Humanity under Natural Law issue this Royal Decree dated today May 30th, 2026.
Preamble,
Whereas the personal data, private communications, biometric identifiers, financial records, medical records, behavioral information, Geolocation records and digital identities of The People are extensions of the inherent dignity, sovereignty, privacy and security of every man, lady and child.
whereas governments and affiliated entities have increasingly collected, exchanged, monetized, transferred, and disclosed the personal information of The People without meaningful informed consent.
whereas the unauthorized commercialization and trafficking of personal data constitute a violation of Natural Law Principles concerning bodily autonomy, privacy, property rights, and human dignity.
Whereas The People possess the inherent right to control their personal information and to be free from unlawful surveillance, exploitation, manipulation, profiling, coercion, and unauthorized data harvesting.
Therefore, under Natural Law, authority this Royal Decree is hereby proclaimed section one definition for the purpose of this Decree,
1] personal data means any information capable of identifying profiling tracking analyzing or relating to an individual including but not limited to:
name address date of birth and identification numbers,
financial and banking records,
medical and health records,
biometric information,
DNA and genetic information,
geolocation and travel data,
communications and metadata,
educational and employment records,
internet activity and digital identifiers,
voice facial retinal fingerprint and
behavioral recognition data.
2] government entity means any federal, provincial, territorial, municipal crown, public quasi, public regulatory intelligence law enforcement, health care, educational or administrative body operating within The Kingdom of Canada under Natural Law.
3] Sale, means any direct or indirect exchange, disclosure, licensing, transfer, monetization, barter, sharing, leasing, or provision of personal data in exchange for money, services, access, benefits, influence, contracts, analytics, or any other consideration.
Section 2, Absolute Prohibition.
Effective immediately upon issuance of this Royal Decree under Natural Law, no government entity shall sell, trade, monetize, lease, exchange, license, or otherwise commercialize the personal data of The People under any condition whatsoever:
Transfer personal data to foreign governments, corporations, contractors, data brokers, artificial intelligence systems, super national bodies, or third parties for commercial or strategic purposes.
Use personal data for behavioral manipulation, predictive profiling, social engineering, political targeting, social credit systems, or coercive technological control.
Collect excessive personal information beyond what is strictly necessary for lawful administrative functions.
Section 3, Informed Consent Requirements.
Express written informed consent.
no personal data shall be shared disclosed transferred or processed outside the originating public service purposes without:
express informed written consent of the individual,
full disclosure of the intended use,
identification of all receiving parties,
disclosure of retention duration,
disclosure of all technological systems, and
AI platforms involved.
Silence, implied consent, bundled consent, coerced consent, or consent obtained through deceptive terms and conditions shall be deemed invalid, null, and void.
Section 4, Data Rights of The People.
Rights guaranteed.
All Canadian nationals and/or citizens shall possess the right to access all personal data held by government entities under Natural Law,
Request correction of inaccurate records,
request permanent deletion of unlawfully collected data,
withdraw consent at any time,
obtain a full disclosure log identifying every entity that accessed or received their data.
Section 5, Destruction of the Unlawfully Obtained Data.
Mandatory audit and destruction within 12-months of this Royal Decree all government entities shall conduct a comprehensive forensic audit of all personal data sharing agreements correction to the within 12-months, that is within 30-days.
Terminate all agreements involving commercial exploitation of public data, destroy unlawfully obtained or unlawfully shared personal data, cease cooperation with private data brokers operating upon non-consensual data acquisition.
Section 6, Biometric and Digital Surveillance Prohibition.
No government entity shall establish or operate,
A] mass biometric surveillance systems.
B] continuous facial recognition tracking systems.
C] social credit scoring systems.
D] AI behavioral prediction systems targeting The People.
E] digital identity systems that condition access to rights, movement, employment, banking, healthcare, or public participation; except were narrowly authorized under Natural Law judicial warrant for specific criminal investigations.
Section 7, Enforcement and Penalties.
Personal Liability.
Any public official under Natural Law, contractor, corporation or agent found knowingly violating this Royal Decree may be subject to,
immediate termination from public office or contract,
permanent disqualification from public service,
financial penalties,
civil liability for damages suffered by affected individuals,
criminal investigation were applicable under existing Natural Laws,
respecting fraud breach of trust, and
lawful surveillance or abuse of authority and power.
Section 8, Supremacy of Privacy Rights.
Paramountcy. The privacy, dignity, autonomy, and informational sovereignty of The People shall take precedence over commercial, political, technological, or administrative interests.
No emergency declaration policy directive corporate agreement, international arrangement or technological initiative shall override these protections absent lawful constitutional authority and due process protections.
Section 9, Effective Dates.
Coming into force this Royal Decree takes effect immediately effective today May 30th, 2026 so Decreed under Natural Law authority on this May 30th, 2026 by the order of Her Royal Majesty Queen Romana Didulo The First, Queen and Commander-in-Chief of The Kingdom of Canada and The World, Living Crown and Custodian of Earth and Humanity, Commander-in-Chief of The United Armies of Earth.
Signed, Sealed, and Delivered for the protection of the We The People around the World.
From his Facebook page
> I have been practicing law without a license for years. I had no idea that i was but now I'm very aware and alert to my actions.
>For those of you upset about my situation, i want to let you know that i absolutely have been practicing law without a license for years. I thought i was not but i absolutely was.
>If you do not take this opportunity to report me, you are legally castrated. You have no essence as a man or woman.
>I'm ready for every kind of report. Please report me. I BEG OF YOU.
AND
> Right now I'm enjoying some time off because it's exhausting counting all of the tax-free currency i get from practicing law without a license 🤣😂📈
At lest one follower says they have complied.