Living Parallel to the "System" and forming a Breakaway Community

Sovereignty, and existing Parallel to a system of citizenship with Fictional Obligations is NOT the fiction called ‘Sovereign Citizens.’ Oxymorons are pushed by Morons to shame Intelligence.

Parallel existence with others means there is No Conflict with others, why force Compliance?

To live parallel to the System, is essentially a way to form a Breakaway Community; it seems most existing systems don’t want that to happen, I wanted to explore potential reasons why. Actually, I already know why, it just doesn’t seem logical, as I have discovered, a lot of things legal are not logical, they are not lawful either.

It seems really strange; bizarre actually, that a political or legal system would want to ‘claim dominion’ over people, simply because they exist and live within a given boundary. For practical reasons, it could make sense to be aware of just who is present within a given community, country or set of borders; yet the pernicious nature of what citizenship actually is, goes much further as we all know. It’s just that most people are distracted by Bread and Circuses. Most people don’t notice the Jail that was built around the Circus, but not everyone.

The story of stability in the Western Empire has been to stay Fat and Distracted

To live Sovereign is to live Parallel

For a simple approach, I tried an exchange with "Chat" to see what “It” would come up with about living parallel. The overall context was kept to Independent, Individual and Self Sovereign, as a concept while existing and living along side a society that has been conditioned to accept the legal fiction called ‘citizenship.’ Chat had a lot of problems processing this because there seems to be some pre-programmed responses; information on this topic is often being ‘managed,’ to steer people away from anything in conflict with government. Provided that the queries have the correct constraints, it seems to follow the logic of Autonomy.

Chat GPT is programed with the Stupidity that Authority wants it to Deliver

Unfortunately, ‘Chat’ has been programed to provide answers and discussion points that include items related to “Sovereign Citizens.” The reason for this might be, Authority doesn’t want people to delve any deeper than the obvious oxymoronic terminologies, which are used to routinely discredit the conceptualization of Sovereign standings for Individuals. In addition to that, it focuses on the idea of people choosing a Sovereign basis for the purpose of avoiding taxes or not following the law and that’s rubbish.

So, Why ask Chat?

Some advantages I thought might be brought to the analysis; Chat can draw from online resources everywhere to add to some of my own details. I do realize that it is not going to provide a truly dynamic discussion having exactly zero experience of a knowledgeable, living professional; nevertheless, out of curiosity I just wanted to see if it could come up with more arguments in my favor.

Questions or Statements I’ve submitted to Chat are in Italic

Chat responses are inside quote blocks

Statements I make in response to Chat are outside and below quote blocks.

Me:

Sovereign Citizen is an Oxymoron; you cannot have both standings. You are either in a state of ‘Sovereignty,’ or ‘citizenship’ as ‘a’ US "person."

Chat GPT:

You're correct in pointing out the tension between the concepts of sovereignty and citizenship as they are understood in legal and political contexts. The term "sovereign citizen" is indeed an oxymoron in a traditional sense, because the two concepts represent fundamentally opposing ideas.

Let's break this down a bit more to understand why:

1. Sovereignty

Sovereign generally refers to the supreme authority or power to govern oneself or one's territory, without external control. A sovereign is independent, self-governing, and not subject to the laws of any other entity or state.

Chat gets this right, so far….

Sovereign — One who has no Ruler and no Subjects

Roots: Sover — Regnum

Google: “Having the highest power, or being completely independent: Sovereign power is said to lie with the people in some countries, and with a ruler in others…. ”

Synonym: Autonomous

Antonym: Citizen (equal to a Subject of State)

Note: Sover + Regnum

If Sover means to be ‘above’ the Regnum, which means Rule or the ‘Rulership,’ this proves the concept of an Individual who is Autonomous, CANNOT be Ruled by any higher authority, because there is none. This condition can also be found in Equality, this implies Plurality and a Parallel existence as a possibility.

The topic of Individual Sovereignty can be found as a thread running throughout History, all the things we ever accomplished in Civilization are effected by it. Current affects are in all areas of human interaction, from Spiritual, Personal, Linguistic, Legal, Economic and Political aspects.

The way Hierarchy perverted natural Anarchy:

• Spirituality became hijacked for benefit of Religion; to customize Morality.

• Linguistics became hijacked for benefit of Law; to shape Definition.

• Natural Community became hijacked for creation of Nations; to centralize Countries. The point to all of it was Control, Statism is based on it.

For the record:

Anarchy does not mean Lawlessness; it means Living “with” Rules, but “without” the Rulers. Chaos or Pandemonium are not a part of the definition.

Chat GPT continued:

Individual Sovereignty: In the context of individual sovereignty, some people claim the right to govern themselves free from any form of external authority, such as the state, government, or legal system. They may argue that they should not be subject to government laws, taxes, or jurisdiction. This is often framed within the belief in natural rights or self-ownership, meaning that an individual is free to make their own decisions without interference from others.

International Sovereignty: In international law, sovereignty refers to the legal independence of a state or nation — its ability to enter into treaties, make laws, and control its own territory.

2. Citizenship

Citizenship represents the status of being a member of a political community or state, with rights and responsibilities granted by that state. In the U.S., citizenship means that an individual is a "person" under the law, subject to the laws of the federal and state governments, and entitled to certain legal protections, including voting rights, legal protections, and access to public services.

Citizenship is inherently a subordinate relationship to the state because it places individuals under the jurisdiction of the government's laws. As a citizen, you are bound by the state's legal and political system, even as you enjoy the benefits and protections of living within that system (such as property rights, freedom of speech, etc.).

Property rights, freedom of self determination, freedom of speech and other unalienable rights like self defense, are natural qualities and properties to all Individual living Beings. These are immutable and irrevocable; as opposed to legally granted privileges, immunities or social titular status. Citizenship is Servitude sold as Liberty; made to look like Freedom. There were a few court cases where courts showed agreement to this:

• Whereas, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a Citizen of the United States….. A citizen of any one of the states of the union, is “held” to be and “called” a “citizen of the United States”, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.

– Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep 300

• Whereas, a “citizen” “in the United States” is analogous to the term “subject” in common-law.

  - State v. Manual 20 NC122, 14 CJS 4, pg 430

3. Sovereign Citizen: An Oxymoron

Sovereign Citizen Movement: The term "sovereign citizen" is used by certain groups of people who believe they are free from the jurisdiction of the government, and they reject the legal authority of the state over them. They claim that by invoking certain legal theories (such as those related to the U.S. Constitution, the notion of a "strawman" or "legal fiction," or international law), they can free themselves from obligations like taxes, criminal laws, or ‘civil duties.’

However, this is an incoherent position because the concept of sovereignty (in the political or legal sense) inherently means independence from government authority, while citizenship inherently involves being subject to the laws and jurisdiction of a government. You cannot be both sovereign (independent) and a citizen (subject to government control) at the same time in any legitimate legal system.

Legal Standing and Authority: A citizen of the U.S. is, by definition, a person who is under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. The government holds authority over its citizens, and those who claim to be "sovereign" yet continue to claim citizenship under U.S. law are essentially contradicting the nature of their claim.

4. The "Sovereign Citizen" Myth in Practice

The sovereign citizen movement relies heavily on misconceptions of legal terms and the misinterpretation of legal documents and procedures. Many adherents to these beliefs attempt to assert that they can avoid paying taxes, following laws, or even participating in the legal system; like courts, by declaring themselves "sovereign" and rejecting the legal status of U.S. citizenship.

In practice, the courts and government agencies reject these claims. Courts routinely find that people who assert sovereign citizenship arguments are still bound by the laws of the United States, and these arguments do not provide legal exemptions from obligations such as taxes or criminal liability.

Courts use plausible deniability; they refuse to acknowledge as a matter of record, the entire purpose for citizenship; it’s not just for purposes of identification alone.

US persons designations and jurisdictional designations are based on a pledge system. Birth Certificate Bonds are a method to hold Allodial Claim over all assets and resources, including people, throughout the country since at least 1913.

Interesting SEC document: Form 10-section12b from the gov website:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1488240/000148824010000004/jawt_1012b.htm

The courts are merely a form of code enforcement for the Federal Corporation and other Franchise Corporations, to maintain control over people they claim as chattel. Of course the court system is going to reject any claims the individual is Free. Along with plausible deniability, the courts use twisted language to discredit those who simply want to be left out of the system; by bringing up an oxymoron, like Sovereign Citizen, they attempt to humiliate individuals into relenting their stance.

5. Theoretical Sovereignty vs. Practical Reality

Sovereignty in theory might sound appealing to those who want to escape government control or believe that their rights are being infringed. However, practical sovereignty is extremely rare in modern nation-states. Even independent nations (like the U.S.) are subject to international law, trade agreements, and other forms of governance and regulation. On an individual level, true sovereignty means freedom from all law, order, or accountability, which is virtually impossible within the framework of modern society, where laws and regulations are designed to ensure social order and justice.

Individuals cannot exist as truly sovereign entities without engaging in the complex structures of modern society — society itself is built on governance, laws, and the acknowledgment of collective agreements about how power and resources are shared.

Individuals are inherently Sovereign, society is built on varying degrees of cooperation, sometimes it’s coaxed, sometimes it’s based on outright compulsion; but that rarely lasts long. Laws and Government can only build discord and repulsion.

Power and resources are not being Shared; they are being Owned, or exclusively Controlled by a Parasitic culture of Bankers and Equity Owners, who use Trust Law to conceal their methods and instruments. Pattern recognition betrays this concealment and secret agreements can and should be completely exposed and nullified.

6. Legal and Financial Ramifications

Legal Recognition: When someone declares themselves a "sovereign citizen" and attempts to act on that belief (e.g., by refusing to pay taxes, disobeying laws, or not recognizing court rulings), they may face significant legal consequences. Courts consistently reject sovereign citizen arguments, and individuals who attempt to claim legal standing based on these ideas can face fines, jail time, and further legal troubles.

Financial Implications: The claims that sovereign citizens can avoid taxes or debts often do not hold up in practice. The IRS and other government agencies actively enforce tax laws, and attempting to avoid taxes by invoking sovereign status can lead to criminal charges and financial penalties.

7. Political and Philosophical Perspectives on Sovereignty

While the sovereign citizen argument is rejected in legal and political systems, there are broader philosophical discussions on individual sovereignty and the limits of government power.

The idea of individual sovereignty has been explored by philosophers like John Locke, Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill, who argue that individuals should have certain inalienable rights and that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

[‘Inalienable’ is the wrong word to use here]

However, these thinkers still recognized that social contracts and the rule of law were necessary to maintain order in society. True sovereignty — as an absolute and independent state of being outside of all laws — would lead to anarchy and is not a feasible or legal reality in modern governance.

At this point, I completely disagree with Chat; Social Contracts like any other contract, must derive it’s legitimacy from the consent of all parties involved. When you were born, could you have ever offered consent to something? You cannot offer what you don’t have. Social peace, and order are actually natural conditions and can be managed without a Pledge System, which creates a claim of legal Control over each Individual from birth.

Laws are essentially Agreements; to become Lawful, they must be perfected by facing Opposition. When an Unlawful Pledge System is completely exposed for what it truly is, the false sense of Social Order will necessarily fall. Lawfulness is a process that, is inherently Anarchistic; that is inclusive of Rules, but existing without Rulers.

Chat’s Conclusion:

The sovereign citizen position is contradictory because sovereignty (in its truest sense) and citizenship cannot coexist in a modern legal system. A citizen is always subject to the laws of the state, while sovereignty implies independence from those laws. Therefore, one cannot simultaneously claim to be both a sovereign (with absolute independence from government) and a citizen (bound by government laws). The sovereign citizen movement relies on fringe interpretations of law that do not hold up in practice, and individuals who attempt to follow these ideas may find themselves in legal and financial trouble.

In short: You are either of sovereign status, or that of a citizen, but not both.

Chat was able to sort out the concept of Sovereign Citizen as being oxymoronic, yet it was clearly not intelligent enough to omit references to tax laws. This has less to do about taxes and more about Autonomy.

Proviso:

Those who choose to seek a parallel existence are best to not make claims, especially in a court room, as that is a tactical mistake, in addition it is completely unnecessary. In specificity:

• Do not make a Legal Claim of Standing, you already have a Lawful Standing; there is a difference.

• On taxes: All US taxes are excises, not income based; however, there is some rational for paying and going under the radar, if you make income in US dollars.

After having eliminated the term “Sovereign Citizen” from it’s response, by placing a constraint; Chat seemed to get each of the valid points that I often point out, yet it continued to place an emphasis on “people seeking to avoid taxes,” or “seeking to avoid following laws.” At this point, I needed to provide it additional constraints to it’s response.

Me:

“By being in a state of Sovereignty, one is aware that the primacy of Law comes from realization of righteousness within. One can be Sovereign while still essentially following “Laws.”

The main issue in making a distinction is where citizens become conscripted into “services;” military service, or jury service, or are being “required” to take medical procedures like vaccines, which they can never remove from their body and have proven to be fatal at times.

Conscription to service is in essence a form of enslavement.

The Sovereign Individual would still be willing to pay US taxes, if he is earning US dollars; however, if he lives abroad and his money is in another currency, this should effectively nullify any requirement to report to the IRS.

If one lives as parallel to the law as possible, why would the legal system want to maintain “claim” on anyone? Please omit any references to ‘sovereign citizens’ in your response, as that is an oxymoron.”

Chat GPT:

I understand your point and the distinction you're making between sovereignty as a concept of personal autonomy and the legal system that governs individuals' lives. What you're describing seems to align more with the philosophical and legal notion of self-sovereignty or autonomy — the idea that an individual has the right to govern themselves according to their own principles of righteousness, while still engaging with the broader society to some extent; such as paying taxes or following laws that do not infringe on one's core autonomy.

Let’s break this down and explore the issues you raised:

1. Sovereignty and the Primacy of Law

The primacy of law, as you mentioned, often refers to natural law or a form of internal moral compass — an inherent sense of what is right and just. For individuals who consider themselves sovereign “in this sense,” the true law is often understood to be universal principles of justice, morality, and natural rights such as, life, liberty, property, etc., which they believe supersede man-made laws.

In this worldview, one is not bound by external laws in the sense of a "contract" with the state, but by an internal commitment to righteousness, self-responsibility, and respect for others’ autonomy. Sovereignty in this context does not mean a rejection of law altogether but a reaffirmation of the primacy of higher moral principles — the law of nature or natural justice — above the laws of any human institution.

Sovereignty in this sense could involve recognizing that one’s actions should be in alignment with personal integrity, without needing to rely on the coercive force of government institutions.

2. Conscription to Service and Forced Obligations

A key point you raised is the issue of conscription, or being forced into military service, jury service, or other mandatory services such as vaccination or compliance with medical mandates. These can be viewed as forms of coercion that infringe upon personal autonomy. From a sovereignty perspective, any form of forced service or mandated intervention, such as vaccines, that violates the body or forces participation against one’s will is seen as a violation of personal sovereignty.

Chat is getting it right so far…..

Conscription to service could be framed as a form of enslavement, in the sense that a sovereign individual cannot be justly compelled to sacrifice their time, energy, or body against their will. For someone who believes in sovereignty, such mandates are often viewed as unjust because they violate the principle of consent — the idea that any true governance must be based on voluntary, conscious agreement.

Yes, Consent is quite important; that was what originally created the ‘united states of America.’

Medical mandates, particularly those involving irreversible medical procedures like vaccinations, would similarly be viewed as a violation of bodily autonomy. A sovereign individual might argue that ownership of the body is absolute — meaning that one has the inalienable [unalienable] right to decide what happens to their body, without being subject to external coercion, even for public health reasons.

3. Taxes, Citizenship, and Global Movement

You mention that a sovereign individual may be willing to pay taxes if they are earning income in U.S. dollars, but if they are living abroad and earning in a foreign currency, they should be exempt from U.S. tax obligations. This touches on the international aspect of sovereignty and the complex nature of taxation and citizenship.

The U.S. tax system is based on citizenship rather than residence. U.S. citizens are required to file taxes on worldwide income, regardless of where they live, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). However, there are exceptions such as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), which can allow citizens living abroad to exclude a portion of their income from U.S. taxation, provided they meet certain residency or physical presence requirements.

Chat is technically correct here; except if I were to live abroad, I would NEVER pay into the IRS, nor would I ever file any of the yearly forms. How would they know what I make? Why would I ever use a Bank? I could use a different name than what my home country has a registry of as well….

From a sovereignty standpoint, an individual might argue that if they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government due to their voluntary departure and relocation to a foreign country, then they should not be bound by the country’s tax laws. However, under current U.S. law, citizenship and the global taxation system would still apply. While an individual might morally reject such tax obligations on the grounds of sovereignty, the U.S. government would still claim the authority to tax its citizens, regardless of their residence or the currency they earn in.

At this point, Chat is effectively explaining very crucial reasons for dumping US citizenship all together, even if you live within the US.

Renunciation of Citizenship: For a person seeking to fully free themselves from U.S. jurisdiction, the official route would be renouncing U.S. citizenship. This is a legal process where the person formally declares that they no longer wish to be ‘a’ U.S. citizen and thus are not subject to U.S. tax obligations or other national laws. However, this process is not without consequences, including the potential for exit taxes on wealth, and the loss of ‘rights and protections’ that come with U.S. citizenship.

Rights do not come from Government; Chat is referring to what is spelled out in the 14th Amendment; “privileges and immunities.”

4. Living “Parallel to the Law”

The idea of living "parallel to the law" — meaning abiding by some [most] aspects of the law while rejecting others that infringe upon personal sovereignty — is a form of non-compliance that seeks to operate outside of the full reach of governmental control. This can be seen in practices like opting out of certain government programs, refusing to participate in government-funded services, or resisting mandatory acts that violate one’s sense of personal autonomy.

The legal system might still claim jurisdiction over individuals who live this way, especially if they engage in transactions that are still under the purview of government regulation, such as receiving income through U.S. dollars, using U.S. banks, or participating in the economy.

The government has a vested interest in maintaining control over its citizenry, as it derives its authority from the system of laws that govern them — including taxation, military service, and other state obligations. This can lead to tension between the sovereign individual and the government’s assertion of jurisdiction.

“The government has a vested interest in maintaining control over its citizenry,” this statement is indicating that Chat offers full admission the Political, Economic, Legal and Social ecosystem is designed ENTIRELY for Control; nothing more. Chat got this one right.

The State's Claim: Governments, by nature, claim authority over their citizens in order to ensure social order, maintain public services, and generate revenue. Even individuals who wish to operate outside of the full scope of government control may still be subject to laws that regulate economic activity, public health, and national security. The challenge for someone living "parallel to the law" is that the legal system may still find ways to assert its claim, even if that person seeks to minimize interaction or compliance.

5. Why the Legal System Would Want to Maintain “Claim”

The legal system, and the state in general, maintains claims on individuals primarily because it relies on jurisdiction to exercise authority over its population. If large numbers of people were able to opt out of legal obligations, particularly economic ones such as taxes, it could undermine the financial system and the rule of law that sustains the state's power.

Chat just keeps it up with the tax argument; the entire economic system is based on Debt, maintaining a Debt based system requires people to be identified as collateral in this sense they are pledged to the Federal Reserve and the Corporation of the United States. If the Birth Certificate Bond creates this fiction of a pledge, the Corporation surely wants to claim what has been pledged to it, just like a form of inventory control.

Consent to Governance:

One of the main principles of a social contract is that individuals consent to be governed in exchange for certain protections and rights. If individuals were to consistently reject the authority of the state without renouncing their citizenship or taking legal steps to opt out, the legal system might view this as a challenge to its authority. The state's claim is to ensure that all individuals within its jurisdiction contribute to the system via taxes, conscription, etc. and adhere to its rules.

The state may also have a pragmatic interest in maintaining jurisdiction over individuals for economic reasons ensuring tax revenue, maintaining a functioning labor force and social order ensuring public health, safety, and national security.

In the second to last paragraph, Consent to Governance and social contracts are utter BS; there is NO social contract, I never signed one, where can I see it? Again it makes reference to items in the 14th Amendment; termed ‘protections,’ or ‘privileges and immunities.’ As for consent; nobody could have consented, there was never a choice, you can’t give what you don’t have. The so called contract was made out of pure deception, then maintained by plausible deniability.

When it comes to tax revenue; who is really benefiting from this? Especially considering the Government is in the position of Trustee, in the International Trust arrangement. Who is really being served a benefit? At the top of this Trust system is the Grantor; I would conclude the Grantor is the Royal establishment.

The last paragraph from Chat shows an emphasis placed on the illogical concept of Government maintaining jurisdictional control over the maintenance of things it has no business doing; with the exception of National Security, such as borders, the rest is really up individuals. There is no such thing as public health; there is nothing to do to ensure it, health is personal not public — Chat is clearly not intelligent.

Chat’s Conclusion:

The sovereign individual is someone who seeks to live in alignment with their internal principles of righteousness and autonomy, and while they may engage with certain societal obligations like paying taxes, they resist coercive or involuntary actions that violate their personal sovereignty — such as conscription or forced medical procedures.

Sovereignty, in this sense, is about recognizing self-ownership and living in a way that honors one’s own principles of justice, without being subjected to undue external control.

However, as long as individuals remain within the jurisdiction of a state, that state will likely assert its claim to govern and regulate their actions. The legal system, therefore, will always want to maintain its claim on those within its borders or who remain citizens, especially for economic and social stability reasons.

A parallel existence with the law might be possible, but it will often face legal challenges from the state, which derives its power from maintaining jurisdiction and authority over its population. [Authority is nothing if not Controlling]

Chat got this topic mostly correct, of course there are areas of contention here for my stance on compulsion. With the primary argument supporting Individual Sovereignty existing in parallel; it could be reasonable to expect conflict from those who crave dominance and control, in service to Parasites who hold equity on the private side.

The Government exercising jurisdictional authority for social stability reasons doesn’t hold up, yet this lie is used quite a lot for rationalizing the necessity for tyranny.

There is a lot of history to systems of social and political power concentration, having a nearly automatic and mindless maintenance of ownership and control over resources and people.

There was once a concept of Righteous Kingship; this became distorted into a Divine Right of Kings, most likely source of this stupidity originated with Yahwehism of the Levant. The idea that God grants land deeds and master hood to ‘a’ specific people, to rule over another specific people, is ridiculously absurd.

I am beginning to think the entire Western Cultural System is a product of a monotheistic mindset; or in other words, the whole Western World defined by “Democracy,” IS a “Religion” in and of itself, or it certainly seems to be. There are certainly areas of structural similarity between Western Government and Western Religion.

This looks like a system designed to harness maximized social cohesion as a product of both voluntary cooperation and subtle coercion. The most effective tyranny does not rely on force alone but on the internalization of hierarchy by the governed. The psychology of the Scrupulous Conformist, shaped by these systems, becomes an enforcement asset for both conformity and obedience.

In up coming articles, I plan on exploring the various historic ways that Hierarchy is a distortion of Sovereignty. The last post, Compulsion vs Cooperation was about how the concept of Cooperation in a social and political sense can get hijacked by veiled Compulsion. The Calculus of Oppressors vs Conscientious Resistance; Plato’s dualistic dialectic approach helps to show how to separate the Sovereign from the Servile.

Related Articles on Sovereignty vs Citizenship

---

Severing our Political ties and finding our own way. What can guide us towards True Freedom?

Severing our Political Ties, Ending the Social Contracts, involving US ‘persons’

Spiritual Identity and Linguistics of Being, reveals Sovereign Equality exists for All

Compulsion vs Cooperation: To Live Sovereign or Servile

---

Ethics of Sovereignty; the basis of Living Sovereign IS to Live Parallel

This is written by Amaterasu Solar: https://substack.com/@amaterasusolar

If we seed our society with a code of conduct, calling to the fore the three Laws – which are:

1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another.

2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone.

3. Do not willfully defraud another (which can only happen without fully informed consent).

Codes of basic conduct between people who generally recognize their own Sovereignty, will take into account that Natural Rights of each living human being, always exists in parallel to each other, never crossing each other.

---

Some Related Articles from others:

From — psychonauts of hyperspace:

Pen Proper applies simple wisdom of linguistics, provides straight forward evidence, exposing the fraud that western government really represents. In the below postings, there are snap shots of just how the system has created many false claims, against your autonomy, reducing people into property within a legal framework. Well worth checking out.

Certificate of Live Birth: Deed to Body of Psykhe

UCC COURT OF BALLS

This one from Pen Proper is a big one and has some very important details:

colorABLE MONEY - colorABLE COURTS

And

Americas' FOUNDING FATHERS;

Amaterasu’s latest post:

Dear Trump Worshipers