UCADIA | Member Rights



	Home \| About \| Belief \| Models \| Awareness \| Patents \| History \| Laws \| Society \| Members \| Glossary \| Help

you are here: > Home >Models

Sovereign Member Rights

	In recent years, there has been such a marked increase in respondent(s)/defendants(s) using the defense of their “sovereign status” that the Justice departments of several nations within the regions covered by the Americas Union have been forced to issue instructions on how to handle such matters.
	For any judge or clerk concerned with ensuring that no injury is brought to their rules and procedures, especially in the form of any alleged contempt of due process, the issue of understanding the nature of just “what is a sovereign?” is important.
	From the perspective of some law enforcement officials, those that promote the cause of “Sovereignty” are wrongly seen as a direct threat to the proper function of justice and the operation of the courts. In fact, judges and prosecutors of inferior courts have already identified two distinct groups of “sovereigns” coming before their courts—those that have knowledge as to the true nature of Sovereign and are able to demonstrate their status and a much large group completely ignorant of precisely what they are claiming.
	Before we consider the characteristics that distinguish these two groups who increasingly are bringing the question of “sovereignty” into court, let us review exactly what is meant in etymology and law by sovereign?
	The origin of the word "sovereign"
	In common usage today, the words Sovereign/Sovereignty are synonymous with both the 13th Century definition “authority, ruler” and 18th Century definition “existence as an independent state”. However, its most common interpretation in popular culture is as a word interchangeable with King, Queen, Monarch, Chief and Principal and not subject to Common Law but the conditions of Sovereign Law.
	While the common understanding of the word is clear, its true etymology and provenance is cloaked in obscurity and unverified mythology. The word is variously claimed to have somehow been derived from Vatican Latin superanus-“chief, principal” through a succession of misspellings by such notable writers as Milton (“sovran”) and possibly even sovrano-a medieval gold coin.
	However the origin of the word and title “sovereign” is far from unclear when one recognizes the Vatican College of Abbreviators under the brilliant guidance of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who struck upon the idea of forging a completely new dictionary of Latin terms specifically for the Roman Cult controlling the Vatican since the 11th Century-by abbreviating existing ancient Latin terms and creating new words as “hidden statements of meaning”.
	Many of the word forms used today, were created during this period, otherwise known as Medieval Latin- the word “Sovereign” being one of them. In contrast to the retrospective mythology assigned to the word, Sovereign is a word created by the Vatican College of Abbreviators using four basic word forms of ancient Latin:
	solus : alone, only, the only.
	vere : truly, really, actually, rightly.
	rex regis : king
	ignis : (of) fire.
	ignarus –(of the) ignorant.
	In other words, the true etymology and meaning of Sovereign is “the only true king of fire/the ignorant”- A title created by the Roman Cult and their incorporated entity known as the Holy See in establishing the system of lawful monarchs across Europe and the world.
	With this true and correct knowledge of exactly the meaning of Sovereign, let us review the criteria for any valid presentation of Sovereign Status before the courts.
	The Condition of being Sovereign
	While it would be legally and strictly correct to state that a Sovereign literally implies one granted such status upon sole approval by the Vatican, this system of title grant has long since degraded since the time of the Reformation and the emergence of “sovereign states” and individual states/societies declaring their own sovereignty.
	While the word and legal form of the condition of being “sovereign” has evolved, there exists three strict conditions that must be met before one may truly demonstrate their Sovereign Status before a court. These include: (1) Granting of Sovereign Status from the Highest Authority; (2) Possession of Land Title as Sovereign and (3) A clear pronouncement of sovereign status demonstrating knowledge of plurality of sovereign character compared to common law.
	The presentment of these three conditions marks the clear separation of one group of men and women pronouncing their “sovereignty” compared to the second large group using the same words but without such evidence.
	When the court is presented with this evidence by the first group, it is encumbered upon the judge and the officers of the court to acknowledge such sovereign status and dismiss all controversies.
	To reject this fundamental principle of rule of law or to pursue further controversy is in direct violation with the most ancient and basic pillars of law that any judge or officer so foolish as to arrogantly and willfully injure the pillars of their own legal system is guilty of the gravest criminal behaviour and contempt of their own laws.
	When such matters of clear criminal behaviour may be brought before the Americas Union Supreme Court, then the Court shall pursue all lawful means to seize the insurance, bonds of such judges and officers so that they cannot damage the law further through incompetent, arrogance and criminal behaviour. Secondly, the Court shall pursue criminal charges and personal liability of such suspended former judges and former court officers.
	To ensure that Judges, Officers and other justice officials do not mistakenly treat those who clearly demonstrate their sovereign status from the broader group without knowledge and therefore place themselves liable to lose their legal positions and face criminal charges, let us investigate the three key conditions of valid sovereign status.
	Sovereign Condition (1) Granting of Sovereign Status from the Highest Authority
	The first condition of true sovereign status remains the granting of such right from the highest authority. This is and has always remained the first and most important proof of being a sovereign.
	Unless a man or woman can demonstrate their sovereignty is granted by legal succession from the highest authority, then the court has every right to dismiss such assertions and move through due process to ensure the man or woman recognizes the authority and jurisdiction of the inferior court.
	In practice, to demonstrate legal succession from the highest authority requires a system of law superior to the present system of western law based upon the superior status of the Holy See and its attendant companies, agents and franchises.
	When any man or woman can demonstrate legal instruments that prove a higher succession of authority to this present system, then the court must yield and acknowledge their sovereign status.
	The only known valid example of such a superior system is via the Ucadian System of Law which demonstrates all men and women are granted sovereign status through the most sacred and sovereign Pactum De Singularis Caelum, otherwise known as the Covenant of One Heaven and then through a series of lesser covenants and charters down to individual societies such as United America.
	This perfected and valid succession of legal sovereign authority is demonstrated here:
	Pactum De Singularis Caelum
	Pactum De Singularis Fidei
	Pactum De Singularis Islam
	Pactum De Singularis Spiritus
	Cartae Sacrorum De Congregatio Globus
	Cartae Sacrorum De Congregatio Americas
	It is important to be clear that any man or woman who demonstrates true sovereign status through their membership to a Ucadian Society is still subject to the comprehensive legal system of this Society and this Court.
	Therefore, the use of Sovereignty to avoid alleged criminal behaviour is not possible as any criminal action by an inferior court is simply transferred to the superior Sovereign Court of the Americas Union Supreme Court as a change of venue.
	Sovereign Condition (2) Possession of Land Title as Sovereign
	The second condition of true sovereign status is much harder for any man or woman before the court to demonstrate—being the condition of proof of being sovereign borne upon sovereign land.
	It is an ancient and well understood principle of sovereign status that a man or woman must be borne a sovereign, to be truly classed as a sovereign—not simply granted the title after their birth. While some individuals are regarded by international law as true sovereigns who fail this criteria, they are able to rectify this deficiency by demonstrating their legal title over land as a sovereign.
	For any man or woman to rightly demonstrate true land title as a sovereign, such title must be Title in Allodium. A sovereign cannot demonstrate true status if they merely hold land under land patent or some lesser title. Nor can an instrument be created to simply claim Title in Allodium—it must demonstrate succession of title from the highest authority.
	As judges and officers of the courts knowledgeable of the present global land title system understand, at present the highest authority granting all land title is the Holy See controlled by the Roman Cult through a series of Papal Bulls (original law) over the centuries.
	In the case of the United States for example, the society operates as a franchise owned by the Virginia Company holding superior land title, in turn owned by the Crown Company of England holding even higher land title and eventually back to the Holy See.
	This means in practice that unless a man or woman coming before a court can demonstrate Land Title of higher authority than this present system, all assertions of Sovereign Status, in spite of the first two conditions of sovereignty being met may be dismissed.
	In contrast, when any man or woman may demonstrate such succession of Title in Allodium from a higher source, such as the Society of One Heaven, including proper authority and Land Title down through the various incorporated societies to the man or woman possessing valid Title in Allodium, then the court has no course other than to immediately dismiss the charges and apologize to the true sovereign.
	Sovereign Condition (3) A clear pronouncement of Sovereign Status
	A Sovereign makes no claim, nor statement. Both words imply a man or woman remains a person and therefore subject to common law and therefore the rules and regulations of the society. Secondly, a sovereign is a plural state of being: the combination of flesh, blood, mind, spirit and office.
	When an individual addresses the court and speaks “I am sovereign”—they have automatically demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the first condition of sovereignty and so can be rightly treated by the court as a member of the second group of “sovereigns”, who may use such words to subvert the due process of the courts.
	A further immediate test that may be applied to the man or woman presenting their “sovereign status” is whether they are making such a presentment as a claim, statement or pronouncement?
	If the man or woman presents their “sovereign status” as a claim or statement, then again the court can be confident they are dealing with an individual that remains a person and not a sovereign man or woman who truly has attained sovereign status and makes pronouncements rather than statements and claims within the purview of common law.
	Regarding sovereign pronouncements, listed below are fourteen examples of valid sovereign pronouncements that if ever presented to a court must be acknowledge as valid form and demonstrated proof of sovereign status:
	De Pronuntionis Unitas America
	De Pronuntionis Lex Regia Sacrorum
	De Pronuntionis Sapientiae
	De Pronuntionis Spiritus Verum
	De Pronuntionis Virtus Naturae
	De Pronuntionis Nutrimens et Medicina
	De Pronuntionis Privatus et Securum
	De Pronuntionis Obligatum et Pactum
	De Pronuntionis Possessionis et Hereditas
	De Pronuntionis Pecuniae et Divitiae
	De Pronuntionis Labor et Itus
	De Pronuntionis Canonum et Larum
	De Pronuntionis Spiritus Civitatis
	De Pronuntionis Pactum Civitatis
	Immediate dismissal when faced with true sovereign
	When faced with a true sovereign demonstrating all conditions, a judge must dismiss all controversies and clear the docket
	When a judge and officers of an inferior court are faced with a true sovereign demonstrating all three (3) conditions of true sovereign status, a judge must immediately dismiss all controversies and clear the docket.
	Any other action, particularly any rejection of such clear and unmistakable sovereign status is a grave injury to the rule of law of any society and places that judge and that court in the position of suspending the rule of law and acting in legal anarchy.
	There is no financial institution in the world, nor insurer nor system of justice that can sustain its courts behaving in legal anarchy by taking the law into their own hands and rejecting such elemental principles of the rule of law.
	Where such evidence of unlawful and criminal behaviour can be demonstrated, the Americas Union Supreme Court shall act swiftly to inform all insurers and financial institutions holding the insurance and bonds of such judges and officers to immediately suspend any underwriting while the Court pursues these individuals for any criminal charges arising out of such disgraceful behaviour if the existing society is unwilling or unable to re-establish its own rule of law.
	If you have suffered such an injury of law by alleged corrupt and unlawful behaviour by inferior courts then please email the Americas Union Supreme Court and we will provide you with the valid forms and procedures to have your matter listed for hearing.