For more content like this, subscribe on Substack or Patreon Substack: www.freedomabsolute.substack.com Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/FreedomAbsolute This episode centers on the distinction between "public" and "private" domains, not in the everyday sense of being outside versus inside one's home, but as legal and jurisdictional concepts tied to individual status and sovereignty. Ken explains how living beings inherently possess a "private" status as sovereign, free-will beings with standing on the land and in law, rooted in their natural existence and universal rights. However, through a system of contracts and legal mechanisms, most people are shifted into a "public" status, represented by a juristic person (e.g., the all-capital-letters name on legal documents), which operates as a bankrupt franchise under Admiralty jurisdiction and military occupation. This shift begins at birth when parents, acting as informants, register a child with the state, effectively abandoning the child's private estate and placing them under state guardianship as a ward. This public status binds individuals to a web of civil codes, commercial contracts, and obligations, where their life force and equity are extracted through signatures on documents like checks or promissory notes, creating monetized debt instruments. Ken uses a T-graph analogy—debits (public debt) on the left, credits (private equity) on the right—to illustrate how signing as an "authorized signatory" transfers private energy into public commerce, benefiting a system controlled by elites who retain true landed estates. We explore how monetized debt is created through commercial paper by leveraging the Ancestral Lineal estate in the private, and how the Public overlay was mapped onto the land via the ZIP code via Panama and brought into the United States. The public domain operates under public policy, codified since the 1933 bankruptcy and House Joint Resolution 192, stripping individuals of lawful money and tying them to Federal Reserve notes and commercial privileges. This system, the speaker asserts, relies on voluntary consent through contracts, which individuals can theoretically revoke by reclaiming their private standing. However, superficial "commercial solutions" (e.g., secured party creditor schemes) are cautioned against, as they misuse public instruments and risk legal repercussions like charges of "paper terrorism." The latter half introduces common law as the law of the land, based on community customs and usages, historically tied to men with standing before the U.S. shifted to martial law post-1861. Common law courts, or courts of record, require a sovereign plaintiff with standing to bring a case, balanced by a jury of peers who can nullify unjust laws. Without reclaiming private status, individuals lack access to such law or equity, which resides in their abandoned estates. We invite you to join us in the transformative process to remove the false narrative reality overlay and rebuild one aligned with sovereign, creative potential.