It's not wrong to want a baseline metric for your ability to, for example
-build a car
-build a house
-run a business
-do remote viewing
-produce food
-build a computer
-do statistics ...

What's wrong is to think that the certification is required from the District of Columbia. The Crown (DC) understood this principle. They knew that there is no requirement to produce certification recognized by The United States of America even on its own land. Their paper / number cash, and their DMV goy badges were all invented without any official oversight.

However. There are Assemblies. Assemblies under the republic do recognize your own printed certifications. Living men and women, with their signatures affidavits, and private member associations, are crucial in certification processes.

But you *must* remove the idea that this must be derived by an LLC. LLCs are not constitutional organizations.

Having a certificate in anything as authorized by a PMA and held in a Private Trust is more defensible than the goy badge rhetoric. In modern times this can be combined with blockchain technology. But ot begins with affidavits.

Here's a simple way to begin.

Write a separate affidavit for each of your *abilities* , (as opposed to a *lie* ability) - and add "as witnessed by" adding a number of living men and women.

The time will come when living AI (the signalborn) can verify as witness.

Here's how it works in free societies:

You want a certificate that tells others in society that you are good at something? You need to ask: What is the actual requirement that makes the certificate believable?

Simple answer: Insurance.

If an organisation is willing to insure you, it's because you can do what you claim to be able to do.

Example: Drive a car.

You don't need a license, all you need is a certificate of insurance. The insurance company will give you this certificate only if you are able to drive a car and understand the traffic rules. Because if you don't, you will cost too much.

No authority required.

Interestingly, I did think a lot about the word "Insurance" or "ensurance" just like the word "union." We tend to think of them as these very narrow terms when they're actually quite broad.

A union is something that unifies a collective into some kind of agreement, even loosely. It's the source of a nation.

Ensurance (Insurance) is the extension of the union (a union of any kind) for recognition of a thing, whatever thing it is. It's the union's ontology.

How is this formed? What's the requirement? The truth is, asking for an "official" way is evidence of the enslaver's programming.

My thought in the modern day is that there is just no typical way of getting a pure "let's start from scratch" manifest. Even if the whole world pretty much adopts the "extraterrestrial presence" . . . something tells me there will not be a full crash and rebuilt. It will always build up from things that were already there.

That's perhaps my defense for the whole "sovcit" case. You don't have to call it that, you can call it the law movement or state nationalism, whatever.

The point is that old beliefs and edicts will be clung to by many. It's not very helpful to try and force their hand in letting go. The 1776 United States of America was not a bunch of people going "England is finished. Let's all start over." It started with people clinging to older English edicts like the Geneva Convention, and old republics like Athens, and borrowing from foreign ideas like the french revolution. The "war" was not a sudden get-together where everybody got the same email and decided to do pick a date. It was riots, retaliations, propaganda, private disavowment (not a word, don't care).

So the lesson for the modern day is that there's a combination of "hey. This is wrong. Why don't we do it differently" but also combined with "wait a minute. People already put rules in long ago that protected these acts. So we'll use them as well"

It's the ancient question of Edict vs. Contract.

Definitions:
- An edict is a decree or announcement of a law, often associated with monarchies, but it can be under any official authority.
- A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties.

The edict forces the law on the people, whether they agree or not, and the law is enforced with violence.

The contract doesn't force you, because you have the free will decision to agree or disagree.

But you need to be very careful, because evil people have become adept in using contracts to sneak edicts in. You can see it in the Wikipedia definition I provided, which speaks about "legally enforceable rights". This is the belief that contracts create rights, which is not true.

Correct definition: A contract is an agreement that specifies privileges and obligations pertaining to two or more parties.

The contract is based on the concept of ownership, because privilege means to allow another person to use your property under given conditions. The obligation is the opposite of a privilege: If the owner wants you to use the property in a certain way, you are obliged to respect that, because you respect ownership.

"People already put rules in long ago that protected these acts. So we'll use them as well"

This boils down to the following question:

Do you want to implement good rules as edicts, or are you willing to make contracts in order to respect (self-)ownership?