Users Online Now:
Donate To GLP
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 34311994:MV8yMTM3ODI1XzM2MDk4MTkxX0JGQTQ3QzQw] "[i]At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows: "This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997." Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England?[/i]" Nope. And in fact the above 'quote' has been altered from the original. Here's the *actual* Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997: ___________ [i]And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992(4) it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992(5) in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section: Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:—[/i] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/introduction/made ___________ Notice how *radically* different the batshyte conspiracy version of the order that you quoted is from the real one? Its a reciprocal social security agreement between the USA and the UK for people who go and work in either country to continue to pay into their country's social security program. The US has one with virtually every modern economy on earth including Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the Czech Republic. [b]Does that mean that all of *these* countries also control social security? [/b]Or that you don't know what you're talking about. Remember, no where in the document you're citing does it say that the Queen of England controls the US Social Security system. [b]But you didn't know that. Why?[/b] Because you've never actually read the document you're citing. You're simply repeating what someone else has *told* you it says...and they lied to you. This conspiracy circle jerk is the beating heart of the 'sovereign citizen' movement. Where one conspiracy quotes another on a document neither of them have read nor understand. And then they just make up whatever they'd like. Yet the actual document didn't change just because your source 'creatively edited' it. Nor does the law change because you make up some imaginary pseudo legal gibberish about 'paper people' or 'syntax' or 'surnames'. None of those limitations or requirements actually exist. [/quote]
I really don't know much about this subject. Is this a genuine description of these people of just the M.S.M. demonizing them?
From Kfor TV out of Oklahoma:
"Law enforcement is paying special attention to a re-surging group of individual extremists; sovereign citizens.
They are anti-government Americans who believe the U.S. government has no authority".
"The world-wide web has been a handy tool in sovereign circles, spreading tactics of their particular flavor of lawlessness.
Sovereign citizens usually represent themselves in court, filing nonsensical paperwork on their own behalf.
Many sovereigns document their struggles to be taken seriously, then post them online.
They rarely have much success."
“What I understand people in some of these cases are doing is making the argument that the original constitutional order left people free from the authority of the federal government and maybe from laws at the state level as well,” Blitz said. “So (they say) ‘You can’t apply these laws to me.’ Not surprisingly, the judges have said, ‘Yes we can.’”
Full article with video:
link to kfor.com
I just want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. You've all given me a bit of a crash education on this subject and directed me to some great sources for learning even more. It's bed time for me but I'm looking forward to reading any new post when I get up.
Once again, thank you!
Pictures (click to insert)
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Misc Small Smilies
View All Categories
Next Page >>
Disclaimer / Copyright Info
with questions or comments about this site.
"Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™
Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Godlikeproductions.com
Page generated in 0.006s (5 queries)