Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

Since you clearly have failed to prove your claim, how about you provide your evidence I am subject to the US Government.

It should be simple enough, GO.

You're subject to the law of the land. If you're in the US, then you're subject to the laws of the US. And if you violate one and we catch you, you will be subject to the law.

Which of course you already know. Which is why you don't dare violate a law where anyone might catch you.

If your theory had actual merit....none of that would be necessary. Demonstrating rather elegantly that even you don't believe your nonsense claims.

Keep running.

Provide your evidence I am under the Jurisdiction of the US Government, J.

Since you failed so badly proving it, I will lower the standard.

you should be used to low standards, you have lived up to them for the past 48 hours on this thread.

And like clockwork, its just more excuses why you don't dare to test your silly little theory.

Shrugs....so much for your bold declarations of immunity from the law. Even you don't believe your nonsense.

Since you clearly have failed to prove your claim, how about you provide your evidence I am subject to the US Government.

It should be simple enough, GO.

You're subject to the law of the land. If you're in the US, then you're subject to the laws of the US. And if you violate one and we catch you, you will be subject to the law.

Which of course you already know. Which is why you don't dare violate a law where anyone might catch you.

If your theory had actual merit....none of that would be necessary. Demonstrating rather elegantly that even you don't believe your nonsense claims.

Keep running.

Provide your evidence the 'law of the land' applies to me.

As you say: YOU saying it does not make it so, or are you a 'sovereign citizen' now, citing yourself?

I've already given you a cartoon simple process to test your theory in a matter of minutes.

And predictably, you won't dare. I know, I know...its so easy to make bold proclamations about your immunity from the law on the *internet*.

But not so easy in the real world where there are actual consequences. Is it, buddy?

Shrugs. Keep running.

Since you clearly have failed to prove your claim, how about you provide your evidence I am subject to the US Government.

It should be simple enough, GO.

You're subject to the law of the land. If you're in the US, then you're subject to the laws of the US. And if you violate one and we catch you, you will be subject to the law.

Which of course you already know. Which is why you don't dare violate a law where anyone might catch you.

If your theory had actual merit....none of that would be necessary. Demonstrating rather elegantly that even you don't believe your nonsense claims.

Keep running.

There is no law of the land. The law is a fiction created by some people who got together and created it. I never agreed to it so it doesn't apply to me

Whose courts and whose laws? They aren't mine because I never agreed to any of it. Just like the Chinese courts and laws aren't my laws.

If you're in China, they are. If you're in the US, then our laws apply. As jurisdiction is established geographically.

Your agreement with the law is completely irrelevant. As the laws apply whether or not you agree. If 'consent' were required for a law to apply, then any murderer could kill anyone they wish....and then summarily declare that the statute against murder doesn't apply to them.

Thankfully, we don't live under such a system. No nation does. That you imagine you're immune from all laws doesn't change the fact that if you violate our laws and we catch you.....you'll be punished accordingly.

You don't dare break a law where you could be caught because you know full well that your entire line of reasoning is meaningless gibberish. Its the same folly for virtually the whole of the sovereign citizen movement. You're brave in the bubble of the message board...and timid as church mice where the *actual* law is applied in the real world.

Those few hapless fools that actually try to put their theories to the test.....end up in jail.

I would think law of the land is things like "if you play in the mud, you get muddy" or "water is wet" those are laws of the land, right?

I would think law of the land is things like "if you play in the mud, you get muddy" or "water is wet" those are laws of the land, right?

would think law of the land is things like "if you play in the mud, you get muddy" or "water is wet" those are laws of the land, right?

Still clinging to those excuses why you won't test your theory, my little keyboard commando?

Yup....its easy to boldly declare your immunity from all law on the internet. But as you're demonstrating for us yet again, applying those principles in the real world is a different story entirely.

Smiling...its a lesson so many of your ilk have learned when they try to use their pseudo-legal gibberish in court. I'm glad I could teach you tonight.

So basically your saying - this democracy is a dictatorship, where full disclosure is impossible to achieve, and fear is the modem of operation...

So basically you're saying that if a murderer kills someone....that he can declare himself exempt from the statute against murder because he doesn't consent to the law?

So basically your saying - this democracy is a dictatorship, where full disclosure is impossible to achieve, and fear is the modem of operation...

So basically you're saying that if a murderer kills someone....that he can declare himself exempt from the statute against murder because he doesn't consent to the law?

ou have been accusing everyone of assinine theories, then you in an assinine fashion respond to me with something not related to my question...

Huh. Now didn't you tell us that an individual had to *consent* to the law? And without that consent there was no law.

Are you telling me that your claim was useless gibberish?

If yes, then wow. That was easy.

If no, when why couldn't a murder just 'not consent' to the statutes against murder and kill anyone he wished?

Isn't he a king too? Or is that just you?

Doesn't look like you thought this through well at all, did you?

Why is J bringing up posts from the way back machine?

Did he not already prove them to be fantasy and then start talking about dicks and cops as proof of jurisdiction?

What gives?

You mean that all those poor, hapless fools that were arrested for violating the laws that you claim don't exist aren't in jail?

You know, we should probably tell Hendrickson and Carr and Schiff and Ed and Elaine Brown. Because they still under the impression that they're in prison.

I'm sure they'll be overjoyed when you tell them (and the prison guards of course) that there is no law and that it was never applied to them!

Oh, this sovereign citizen nonsense never fails to crack me up.....