Sovereignty 101

Sovereignty 101

People around the world recognize the United States of America as a sovereign nation; however, it is far more rare for them to realize the principle of law that provides sovereignty to our nation comes from the fact that the country is “a nation of sovereign people”; and, today, so little is taught about sovereignty in the schools that the people rarely seem to understand the natural effect of their actual individual sovereignty either as a matter of their inherent rights or as an element of political power.

Though the people may identify themselves as “Sovereign”, they rarely comprehend the effect their sovereign nature has on their actual standing either personally or in the community of people that surround them; accordingly, they rarely properly comprehend the terms: “sovereign nation” or “sovereign state”.

Thus, to understand sovereignty we must go to back to man’s creation and notice, from the first instance of man’s existence on this planet, the Creator granted man the three key elements that define sovereignty: “Dominion, Agency and Possession”.  Thus, to understand sovereignty, we must first understand those three key elements of sovereignty:

‘Dominion’, in this context, is defined as:
“The supreme authority over a ‘domain’.”

Respectively, ‘Domain’ is defined as:
“A specific (definable) physical area of intangible space.”

And, finally, such space may be either intrinsic or extrinsic in its relationship with whatever occupies said space (domain): (1) intrinsic space is the intangible space defined by the boundaries of a tangible body (like the space defined by your physical body—which happens to be in constant motion); and, (2) extrinsic space is any area of a physically defined fixed space, which space itself is distinguished from any of the contents that may lie within that space (like the space defined by a land description; it having a two dimensional boundary at the surface of the earth with its third dimension ranging from the center of the earth to the heavens above).

Thus, the dominion every man, woman or child inherits by live birth is defined, from birth, by the external confines of the natural living physical body itself.  However, because that initial birth-righted domain defines a constantly moving space (intrinsic to that body), which space moves with the body through the space (extrinsic to that body) defined as land, the potential for conflict between these two spaces (the space within the human body and the space through which that body moves) is the source of all political power and conflict.

Respectively, the boundaries of said space, intrinsic to any individual party, has no inherent political power over any other party.  Still, because the physical contents of that intrinsic space does pose a physical limitation from any other party simultaneously occupying that same inviolate extrinsic space, that body must either acquire the lawful right to move within the extrinsic physical space surrounding the physical body as well; or, it will be trespassing upon space most likely owned and/or controlled by some other party.  Again, this physical limitation regarding conflicting domains is the substance from which all political power is derived.

Simply stated: you have absolute control over the space your body occupies (intrinsic space); however, your body is not a fixed space; rather, it is in constant motion; therefore, of necessity, your body moves through and occupies space defined as land; therefore, if someone, other than you, owns or controls the land you occupy a conflict (feud) exists between the domain defined by your body and the domain defined by the land. Such conflicts may be resolved by agreements made before you occupy the land.  However if no such prior agreement is made your occupancy constitutes a trespass (act of war).

Thus, it becomes incredibly important for people to understand what land actually is; because as they increase their landownership, so increases their sovereign domain:
“‘Land’ is not restricted to the earth’s surface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is it confined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds such things as gases and liquids.  Ultimately … ‘land’ is simply an area of three dimensional space, its position being defined by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth’s surface.  ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space… .  Land is immoveable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable; it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible.  The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.”
Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2nd ed. 1988), reprinted in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition

Thus, the element of sovereignty defined by one’s dominion (ownership and or control of land) defines the political effect of one’s sovereign rights; and, that political effect does not begin to expand until people begin to expand their birth-righted intrinsic domain to include landownership.
Respectively, as your dominion increases, so does the effect of your sovereign political power.

In fact, the expansion of such sovereign political power is the basis for the formation of kingdoms.  “Kingdoms” a.k.a. “monarchies” are formed when the people grant absolute Title over the domain (the Land—see definition above) to an individual party; the King/Sovereign.  Thereafter, though the people may continue to occupy that domain and maintain private ownership of their property appurtenant to the Land in question (including the: rocks, shrubs, trees, soil, buildings, and all other forms of chattel property that may exist within a given domain), they no longer own the domain (the extrinsic space) itself, which their said property occupies; thus, because different parties distinctively hold Title to both the extrinsic domain and the property that intrinsically occupies that domain, it is said that the two owners are in a feudal state.  Thus, such a title to private property so held in a monarchy is called: “Feudal Title”; which means, the domain, and the property appurtenant to it, are separately owned by at least two distinctively separate parties.  Such is the nature of places like: Great Britain, Denmark and Canada.

Accordingly, in kingdoms, though the people may own private property, they live on the Land and hold their property as tenants on the Land subject to the King/Sovereign/Feudal Lord.  Thus, when it comes to the political nature of sovereignty, regardless of your natural sovereign nature—if you are not a landowner you are either a contracted tenant/subject occupying someone else’s land or you are a trespasser committing an act of war against some other sovereign landowner.

From this review of “Dominion” we hope you are at least beginning to see why at Genesis 1:28 God instructed mankind to “take dominion”; and that, your god given inherent sovereign right to your intrinsic dominion must be expanded by the acquisition of extrinsic domain (landownership) for that sovereign dominion to have any effective political power.  Further, your acquisition of land also directly effects your God given inherent right to Agency.

Agency is defined as your God given inherent right to choose your own actions.  However, while no power on earth can lawfully take that right of agency away from you, the nature and option of the choices available for you to determine are intimately limited by, and connected to, the Dominion you possess and to your ownership of the same.

Thus, if your dominion is limited to the intrinsic domain defined by the confines of your physical body, then the feudal nature of your tenure on some other parties extrinsic domain is either controlled by the terms of the contractual relationship that allows you to occupy their land or you are trespassing on some other sovereign’s domain; which trespass constitutes an act of war.  That is exactly why the natural penalty for trespassing has always been death.  In other words: “The penalty for an act of war is death.”

From this you must be able to see that until one owns their own private land (extrinsic domain), their options for agency are incredibly limited to the terms of their feudal tenure on some other sovereign’s land.  Thus, though people in the Untied States of America rightfully believe in their constitutionally secured rights to Freedom/Liberty, those rights can never overcome the terms and conditions of their contractually secured (limited) tenancy rights that allow them to occupy some other sovereign’s land.  Respectively, the agency they have to lawfully exercise their so secured rights to Liberty remain so limited (by their contractually controlled tenancy) until they acquire their own land (extrinsic domain).

Further, when we consider the political power of their natural sovereign authority (absent ownership of their own land), they remain tenants subject to the terms of their contracted tenure on the other sovereign’s land.  As the nation was formed, the founding fathers recognized this political limitation by acknowledging that “Electors” were defined by their landownership.  In fact, early on, it was recognized that to be an Elector meant you owned 50 acres or more of land.

Again, that element of Agency is most easily understood by noticing that in a “Republic” all authority in government comes from the people.  Thus, in order for the government to have the agency to exercise any level of authority, they must have acquired that agency from the people.  Accordingly, if the people are to grant government any element of authority the people must first possess the dominion and agency to exercise that authority; if they do not, then the government cannot lawfully acquire the authority in question.
For example, we ask: “Do you possess the lawful authority to control me by limiting me from my natural God given right to chose a spouse and marry that spouse how, when and where the two of us so desire?”

Of course, the answer is obviously: “No.  You possess neither the agency nor the dominion necessary to compel such a limit upon me.”

OK; so, do I possess such an authority to lawfully so limit you?

Again, the answer is obviously:  “No.  I possess neither the agency nor the dominion necessary to compel such a limit against you.”

That being the case, can we get together to lawfully combine our authority to so compel some other party in such a manner?

Again, the answer obviously remains:  “No.  We cannot join together to so create either the agency or the dominion necessary to lawfully compel such limits upon others; and, neither can anyone else.”

Therefore, given the facts that all lawful authority in government comes from the people and the people can only grant to government authority the people themselves possess, then, the fact remains that the people neither possess the agency nor the dominion to grant government the authority to so limit people from marrying how, when and where they so desire.  Nonetheless, many States seem to have marriage license requirements to limit marriages in exactly that way!

So, how can that be?

The answer is simple, those states passed statutes that made those requirements and the people failed to properly contest the alleged authority of those States.  We expect the reason for that failure was the people did not know the law; so, they did not know how to contest the alleged necessity in the State Statutes.  Further, failing to raise such a challenge in a timely manner leaves the State in the possession of the ‘color of law’ privilege of enforcing such authoritative governmental controls and the people are compelled to follow those statutes until they are properly removed in accord with the due process of law.  Thus, it is important for the people to learn the law so they can apply it and not have their Agency so limited by authoritative controls that are not lawful.
We hope you can see from this example how necessary it is for all of us to learn the law and to exercise our agency especially when that agency is lawfully expanded by the rights inherent to our dominion.

The example should also make it clear that dominion and agency related to the dominion play elemental parts in providing the authority necessary to form a government and lawfully grant that government the necessary authority to govern those (states and foreign powers) that may desire to contract (form treaties, etc.) with said government. 

Respectively, the only parties that possess the necessary agency (authority) over the domain are those very landowners that own said domain.  That is exactly why those landowners are naturally also called “Electors”; and only they possess sufficient agency and dominion to lawfully elect the original jurisdiction governors and our President.

Possession is the third and final element of sovereignty.  Dictionaries define ‘possession’ as: “The act of having or taking into control”.  Thus, as a defining element of sovereignty possession is the active right to exercise your agency and control your rightful dominion.

Most of us have heard the phrase:
“Possession is nine tenths of the law.”
However, it seems like people often take that phrase out of context and imagine it means that if they possess a thing, then 9/10 of the law says the thing, so possessed, belongs to them.  In reality, that phrase is the ancient Maxim of Law on Theft.  It means:
“Nine tenths of the time the possessor of stolen property is the thief.”

So it is with the occupation of domain extrinsic to your body; if you are not the landowner of a particular parcel of land and you occupy said land without permission from the landowner, over nine tenths of the law provides that you are trespassing.

However, possession can also refer to things that are not tangible; like rights.  For example, notice how many times possession was referenced in paragraph 2 (above); where the topic was “agency”.  So it is that rights, like agency, are also the object of possession.

Respectively, we ask: “If a sovereign has the right of dominion and the right of agency over a property/thing they own, but that thing is not physically possessed within their domain, can they exercise their sovereignty over that thing?”

The answer is simple; in spite of their lawful right of ownership of the thing, because it is not possessed within the realm of the sovereign’s dominion, the sovereign may not have the right to exercise its sovereign domain; because it does not have the three elements of sovereignty available to it at the time in question.  The thing itself occupies its own intrinsic space (domain); and if that space is currently in a feudal conflict that was not previously resolved by an agreement for that occupancy, then a trespass is in progress and such a trespass negates the sovereign right of control.
So it is within any society, the three key elements of sovereignty must all come together for sovereign authority to avail lawful sovereign control over anything.  It is not enough to be sovereign to have its political power bear authority over any other party.  For the political power of sovereignty to have any lawful effect it must be used with the proper agency exercised within the dominion of the sovereign over the subjects and things that remain within that dominion.  For that sovereign authority to extend outside of that specific dominion, there must be agreements in place that allow that sovereign authority to continue over that land (domain) that remains outside of the sovereign in question’s dominion.  Only then will the sovereign have any political power to exercise any authority.

Accordingly, as the individually sovereign people of this land (the founding fathers and their neighbors) originally received their Land Grants made patent (Allodial Title) from the King of Great Britain, they were recognized as an independent people, each possessing their individual sovereign right to self-government.  Therefore, as they chose to do so, they each exercised their respective sovereign rights to collectively form our Constitutional Republic; wherein, they each granted a very limited portion of their respective sovereign authority to the government; so, it could exercise that collective sovereignty from the people to carry out the responsibilities so granted to the government through the Constitution for the United States of America.  Respectively, the people also similarly granted that same type of authority to the States; so, they could likewise function.

However, the people never granted either form of government (State or Federal) full sovereignty; for that would require that each of the landowning people knowingly, willingly and voluntarily gave up their private domain (landownership) and respectively granted complete control of it, and of them, to the government as either a monarchy or an oligarchy; which thing has not happened—yet.

The grievous danger that faces us today is the ignorance of the people.  We must remember, Sovereignty was granted to us as a gift from God; and, to God we remain responsible for that gift.  The original jurisdiction Supreme Court of the United States of America rightfully ruled that the political power of sovereignty is not something that can be granted by contract to a corporation (see: Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738; 9 Wheat. 738).

However, people can foolishly act in ignorance and bind themselves in contracts that limit them from their sovereign rights.  When they do, their very sovereign nature is the thing binds them to such contractual obligations.  When an agreement is entered into, all of the parties to the agreement are required to know what they are doing; thus, when the agreement is made, each party knew, or should have known, what the binding terms of such agreements were.

As a case in point, we refer to The Seduction as an example of the people acting in ignorance to use their own sovereign natures to both bind themselves to the service of a foreign sovereign and from the service of their Creator.  Again, the reason our nation has the problems it has today is because the people fail to learn the law and then act in ignorance of it to their own detriment.

Of course, that problem also has a simple remedy.  The people must throw off their ignorance.  They must start learning the law from their own firsthand experience of studying the law itself with its language and history.  Then the people must begin to act in their natural capacities to both live in accord with the law (both God’s and man’s) and hold those that violate the law accountable to the law.  Of course, once the people are living in accord with the law, they must make sure that their government officials do the same.

As you recognize these necessities, we hope you will remember, Team Law can help.  That has been our purpose from the beginning.  Though we will not do your work for you (no one can), we are very good at helping people learn how to learn the law; so, you can know that you know it and can accordingly learn how to lawfully apply the law.

As you learn what sovereignty is, we can help you learn how to use your sovereign authority wisely and how to avoid using it in ignorance to your own demise. When that is your desire, we look forward to your support so we can together save our nation, our families and ourselves.




Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis

Joseph F Barber