Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,750 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,505,822
Pageviews Today: 2,161,098Threads Today: 580Posts Today: 9,789
03:31 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

 
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 06:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Well our birth certificates do have serial numbers, making them some sort of bonds, own by our respective countries, which are listed on the markets as corporations. Each bond has a "quote" which reflects your value to the company. How much you are worth (education and revenue) and how much debt you can carry and more importantly can repay (credit score)."

The serial numbers on Birth Certificates make them a sort of bond....according to who?

This is what I"m talking about. You just made that up. There's no legal basis for this claim, no court that recognizes a birth certificate as a 'bond', no law that recognizes or affirms your claim.

Its just you, citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. This is something that the 'sovereign citizen' guys just never understood:

You *typing* or *saying* something doesn't make the law change. Anymore than declaring that you are Napolean makes you the head of the French Army or calling yourself Jesus Christ makes you the head of the Catholic Church.

Your made up psuedo-legal gibberish is meaningless.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11256851
Canada
02/13/2013 06:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Sovereign citizen" ... you can be one or the other but not both.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29203778

I agree in another way:
1. You/I can be citizen or not;
2. You/I cannot find the resources to defend own full/ true sovereignity.

Sovereignity is linked by the understanding the Lord created the Man and gave the Earth as own dominion.
A masonic state, (=prayers to death evils) do you think will agree and/or respect this???
Such mind construct entity (state) is "working" with another mind construct entity (person) because dead thing can be connected to dead thing.
A state is not a man to talk, share the life.
People "covered"/hidden with/by titles, climbed in powerful positions are "working" for the dead, virtual monster is the state pretending they understand what needs the dead from we, the living creatures.

As citizen, the power to decide and the right to use the force are given to the corporation.
As sovereign the one must have the self defending power of his life, fsmily, dominion.
Citizenship and Sovereignity do mot match.
A sovereign do not obey corporate rules and does not keep the registered name (last, surname, ... "family"!? name) and is defined by the land he's dominant - has the power of decision and free action.
Too many people on a determined area made possible to organize groups with opposed goals, to fight for supremacy; once the tribe, the people, the kingdom, the nation, ... were created the freeman or sovereign attribute was "given" to the IDEA OF GROUP, where individuals are connected by rules of sharing the resources and to defend together: the people, the land, the assets, the peace...

Tell me please where can be found a place on Earth not occupied/claimed by a corporation... they "conquered" every square inch of land.. and the water is still a place to fight as a free... pirate, ... before the [joined] armed forces sent by corporations are hunting/killing the "terrorists".
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 06:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"if you wonder why his sites written how it is-it is in correct syntax.

now go learn."


'Correct syntax' according to who? Again, you don't decide when the law is valid and when it isn't. Your imaginary 'correct syntax' requirement doesn't exist. Its just another in a litany of made up nonsense that the sovereign citizen movement invents from nothing....and then demands the law must meet before it can apply authority over them.

Your imaginary requirements are irrelevant. They don't actually limit or define the law. Or effect it in anyway.

This is why the sovereign citizen movement fails so consistently. Its not a 'syntax' problem. Its that they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34281023
Australia
02/13/2013 06:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"if you wonder why his sites written how it is-it is in correct syntax.

now go learn."


'Correct syntax' according to who? Again, you don't decide when the law is valid and when it isn't. Your imaginary 'correct syntax' requirement doesn't exist. Its just another in a litany of made up nonsense that the sovereign citizen movement invents from nothing....and then demands the law must meet before it can apply authority over them.

Your imaginary requirements are irrelevant. They don't actually limit or define the law. Or effect it in anyway.

This is why the sovereign citizen movement fails so consistently. Its not a 'syntax' problem. Its that they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
 Quoting: J 34311994


im just going to state youre a shill or stupid because you wont learn.
either way your a waste of energy.
That guys a federal judge.Hes also a judge here.research him.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31735180
Canada
02/13/2013 06:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to www.theforbiddenknowledge.com]

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows: S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997.

See APFN Web Pages: [link to www.apfn.org] ; [link to www.apfn.org]

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?

This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1783) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80.. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ..'
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

The United States is not a land mass, it is a corporation.
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.

Now the Articles of Confederation which were declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12:
"All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

The Articles of Confederation acknowledge the debt owed to King George.
Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, the conquest was not yet complete. Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

See APFN web page [link to www.apfn.org]


On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.
What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person.
"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272 "Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction. For an in-depth look into the nature of these corporations and to see how you also have been declared a fictional entity. See: AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. VOL.XIII By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in detail the nature and purpose of these corporations, you will be stunned at what you read.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.
Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it states; "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it. The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States. Now the creditors of the United States which included the King wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the founding fathers, their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!!

If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their duty to collect our substance. As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves. If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation". This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was, he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the King wanted them here.

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems, but they too are for the most part also slaves. Jewish Law does however govern the entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit: "Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel. Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees, and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."
We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").

Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code which is private international law. The written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all of the property in the world. The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain and that the Jews are in charge of the Baking system.

We are living under the Babylonian Talmud. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the various religions ever since. It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist. Private International Law, which is commercial law, only deals with fictions, known as persons. A person is a fictional entity at law, not a living being. See UCC 1-201.
Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property!

Here are just a couple of examples:
"The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)

You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government.

See APFN web page [link to www.apfn.org]

All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.? Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to it's udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves.

You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope. Now the picture will become much clearer after reading the next few paragraphs. We will now show the Popes involvement in the scheme of things. "Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)

If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being observed he must be obeyed. Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence the jus nationale, (Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown that the Pope rules the world?

The Pope (Vicar of Christ) claims to be the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty of 1213, Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1492.

Don't let this information alarm you because without it you cannot be free, You have to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that our slavery is because we believe in fictions.

THE END
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34281023
Australia
02/13/2013 06:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to www.theforbiddenknowledge.com]

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows: S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997.

See APFN Web Pages: [link to www.apfn.org] ; [link to www.apfn.org]

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?

This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1783) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80.. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ..'
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

The United States is not a land mass, it is a corporation.
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.

Now the Articles of Confederation which were declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12:
"All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

The Articles of Confederation acknowledge the debt owed to King George.
Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, the conquest was not yet complete. Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

See APFN web page [link to www.apfn.org]


On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.
What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person.
"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272 "Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction. For an in-depth look into the nature of these corporations and to see how you also have been declared a fictional entity. See: AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. VOL.XIII By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in detail the nature and purpose of these corporations, you will be stunned at what you read.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.
Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it states; "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it. The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States. Now the creditors of the United States which included the King wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the founding fathers, their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!!

If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their duty to collect our substance. As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves. If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation". This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was, he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the King wanted them here.

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems, but they too are for the most part also slaves. Jewish Law does however govern the entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit: "Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel. Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees, and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."
We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").

Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code which is private international law. The written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all of the property in the world. The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain and that the Jews are in charge of the Baking system.

We are living under the Babylonian Talmud. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the various religions ever since. It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist. Private International Law, which is commercial law, only deals with fictions, known as persons. A person is a fictional entity at law, not a living being. See UCC 1-201.
Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property!

Here are just a couple of examples:
"The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)

You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government.

See APFN web page [link to www.apfn.org]

All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.? Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to it's udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves.

You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope. Now the picture will become much clearer after reading the next few paragraphs. We will now show the Popes involvement in the scheme of things. "Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)

If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being observed he must be obeyed. Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence the jus nationale, (Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown that the Pope rules the world?

The Pope (Vicar of Christ) claims to be the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty of 1213, Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1492.

Don't let this information alarm you because without it you cannot be free, You have to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that our slavery is because we believe in fictions.

THE END
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31735180


and did you know british solicitors were doing this 2yrs ago?

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 06:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Sovereignity is linked by the understanding the Lord created the Man and gave the Earth as own dominion."

Your religious interpretations don't define the law either. No one is bound to the limitations that you make up.


"As citizen, the power to decide and the right to use the force are given to the corporation."

Says who?

You citing you. Which as we've long established, doesn't mean a thing. The imaginary distinction between a 'citizen' and a 'sovereign' is just that: imagination. It doens't actually exist, nor is it recognized under the law.

Its just citizens. You making up some fantasy 'status' doesn't change the law or its application to you in the slightest.


"A sovereign do not obey corporate rules and does not keep the registered name (last, surname, ... "family"!? name) and is defined by the land he's dominant - has the power of decision and free action."


A surname is irrelevant. As the 'paper person' fallacy is wholly imaginary. No such legal concept is recognized. No such requirement for applying the law exists. You can call yourself Frank or Optimus Prime or nothing at all.....you still have to pay your taxes or obey traffic laws.

There simply isn't any super secret status that makes you immune to the law.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34281023
Australia
02/13/2013 07:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Sovereignity is linked by the understanding the Lord created the Man and gave the Earth as own dominion."

Your religious interpretations don't define the law either. No one is bound to the limitations that you make up.


"As citizen, the power to decide and the right to use the force are given to the corporation."

Says who?

You citing you. Which as we've long established, doesn't mean a thing. The imaginary distinction between a 'citizen' and a 'sovereign' is just that: imagination. It doens't actually exist, nor is it recognized under the law.

Its just citizens. You making up some fantasy 'status' doesn't change the law or its application to you in the slightest.


"A sovereign do not obey corporate rules and does not keep the registered name (last, surname, ... "family"!? name) and is defined by the land he's dominant - has the power of decision and free action."


A surname is irrelevant. As the 'paper person' fallacy is wholly imaginary. No such legal concept is recognized. No such requirement for applying the law exists. You can call yourself Frank or Optimus Prime or nothing at all.....you still have to pay your taxes or obey traffic laws.

There simply isn't any super secret status that makes you immune to the law.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311994


ive given what you wanted and your just citing yourself-who are you to say?

shill.

OP these type threads always attract"this".always.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34281023
Australia
02/13/2013 07:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Sovereignity is linked by the understanding the Lord created the Man and gave the Earth as own dominion."

Your religious interpretations don't define the law either. No one is bound to the limitations that you make up.


"As citizen, the power to decide and the right to use the force are given to the corporation."

Says who?

You citing you. Which as we've long established, doesn't mean a thing. The imaginary distinction between a 'citizen' and a 'sovereign' is just that: imagination. It doens't actually exist, nor is it recognized under the law.

Its just citizens. You making up some fantasy 'status' doesn't change the law or its application to you in the slightest.


"A sovereign do not obey corporate rules and does not keep the registered name (last, surname, ... "family"!? name) and is defined by the land he's dominant - has the power of decision and free action."


A surname is irrelevant. As the 'paper person' fallacy is wholly imaginary. No such legal concept is recognized. No such requirement for applying the law exists. You can call yourself Frank or Optimus Prime or nothing at all.....you still have to pay your taxes or obey traffic laws.

There simply isn't any super secret status that makes you immune to the law.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311994



the points ive made refer to correct parse syntax, correct use of that in contracts and maritime law.
Zuzu (OP)

User ID: 24583969
United States
02/13/2013 07:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Sovereignity is linked by the understanding the Lord created the Man and gave the Earth as own dominion."

Your religious interpretations don't define the law either. No one is bound to the limitations that you make up.


"As citizen, the power to decide and the right to use the force are given to the corporation."

Says who?

You citing you. Which as we've long established, doesn't mean a thing. The imaginary distinction between a 'citizen' and a 'sovereign' is just that: imagination. It doens't actually exist, nor is it recognized under the law.

Its just citizens. You making up some fantasy 'status' doesn't change the law or its application to you in the slightest.


"A sovereign do not obey corporate rules and does not keep the registered name (last, surname, ... "family"!? name) and is defined by the land he's dominant - has the power of decision and free action."


A surname is irrelevant. As the 'paper person' fallacy is wholly imaginary. No such legal concept is recognized. No such requirement for applying the law exists. You can call yourself Frank or Optimus Prime or nothing at all.....you still have to pay your taxes or obey traffic laws.

There simply isn't any super secret status that makes you immune to the law.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311994


ive given what you wanted and your just citing yourself-who are you to say?

shill.

OP these type threads always attract"this".always.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34281023



I've actually learned a lot from the debating going on here. I hope others have as well. Thank you to all for your input.hf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"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?
"

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:

___________
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:—


[link to www.legislation.gov.uk]

___________

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.

Does that mean that all of *these* countries also control social security? 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.

But you didn't know that. Why? 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.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"
ive given what you wanted and your just citing yourself-who are you to say?
"


Nope. You offered me a recycled argument that doesn't hold up when you actually fact check it. As I just demonstrated. The quote you offered was radically altered from the *actual* law you claimed to cite.

You're hamstrung by the fact that you've never actually read any of the documents you've citing, nor have the slightest clue what they're referring to.

You're simply mechanically repeating a line of conspiracy hogwash that even a passing review of the *actual law* (not the conspiracy 'creatively edited' version) demonstrates is meaningless gibberish.

This, in a nutshell, is how the entire sovereign citizen movement operates, and the quality of its legal argument. Which is why it fails virtually every time these tired, debunked conspiracy claims are offered in court.

And again with that 'shill' idiocy. You guys don't handle anyone who questions your groupthink, do you?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"the points ive made refer to correct parse syntax, correct use of that in contracts and maritime law."

And for at least the 4th time...'correct' according to who?

Its just you, citing you....insisting that if you don't think a given piece of syntax is 'correct', that a law is invalid.

But who cares what you think about syntax or any other legal principle? You're not a legal authority. You're just a guy on the internet insisting that unless the law conforms to the imaginary requirements you've invented, its invalid.

No such requirements actually exist. Nor do you decide which laws are valid or invalid. That you *imagine* you do is quite irrelevant.

As you, citing you, doesn't mean a thing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34057525
United States
02/13/2013 07:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Sovereigns are just people trying
to survive outside the NWO Matrix.

it is not they who seek a confrontation
it is the Matrix who seeks them to
put their shackles back on.

Living in the Matrix is nothing
but slavery and mind programming
to hide those shackles.

The best slaves are the ones
who know not they are slaves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862


THIS
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31735180
Canada
02/13/2013 07:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

[link to fr.wikipedia.org]

Look her up. She published a book against big pharma "Mafia médicale" and is known for her fiscal resilience. She closed her bank accounts, her credit card, canceled her government medicare (trust me, just that is a HUGE move), she stopped paying her taxes. Went to prison for it cause she refuse a deal for parole cause it was made in her civil name, which is owned by the federal government, which she renounced.

Today shes free, really free. And they hate her for that.

Suck it Shill.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31305369
United States
02/13/2013 07:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Sovereigns are just people trying
to survive outside the NWO Matrix.

it is not they who seek a confrontation
it is the Matrix who seeks them to
put their shackles back on.

Living in the Matrix is nothing
but slavery and mind programming
to hide those shackles.

The best slaves are the ones
who know not they are slaves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862


No they aren't, I met one once on a delivery. He was living with his disabled mother on the gov't dole.

Broad brush to paint all like that, but I would say that like anything else, there is about 3% who are for real, the rest are just dodging responsibility to take care of themselves, and hide criminal activity against law abiding Americans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1783) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80.. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ..'
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)"

Again, you've never read the Treaty of Paris or have the slighest clue what it says. You ape that it 'brought the people of America to their knees'....because you're ignorant of the *actual* content of the document.

If you'd ever bothered to read it, you'd see this passage, front and center....that obliterates the entire line of reasoning you're offering:

_____________________________________________
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Article 1, Treaty of Paris, 1783


[link to www.earlyamerica.com]
_______________________________________

Which of course, you've never seen....because you're once again mechanically apeing an argument you don't understand, citing documents you've never read, nor comprehend. Its not as if this were buried deep in the document - its the very first article. And it completely obliterates your entire line of bullshyte reasoning.

Again and again, when you read the *actual* documents....not the snippets taken out of context or the 'creatively edited' conspiracy versions.....they simply don't say what you claim they do.

Are you starting to understand the essentially perfect record of failure of the 'sovereign citizens' in court?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31735180
Canada
02/13/2013 07:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Heres another one, Dean Clifford. He can even teach you how to reclaim your freedom.

[link to deanclifford.info]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31735180
Canada
02/13/2013 07:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
They arrested him last week and they're gonna bury him in legal proceedings until he either accept their will or die.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1644184
United States
02/13/2013 07:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Sovereigns are just people trying
to survive outside the NWO Matrix.

it is not they who seek a confrontation
it is the Matrix who seeks them to
put their shackles back on.

Living in the Matrix is nothing
but slavery and mind programming
to hide those shackles.

The best slaves are the ones
who know not they are slaves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862


Then we've got a lot of really, REALLY, shitty slaves on this board ;-)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 826012
United States
02/13/2013 07:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"And if you read what i wrote correctly-i did not say its as simple as declaring yourself anything in court.Its about using the correct syntax and not being tricked into purgering because of not understanding noth syntax and maritime law."

Nope. The entire basis of your argument is nonsense. There is no super secret status that has to be articulated in *just* the right way that magically makes you immune to all law. Its not syntax. Its that your argument is a baseless fallacy.

There's no requirement that the courts must first 'trick you' before they can exert authority. You made that up. They have authority based on geography. If you're in Maryland, the laws of Maryland apply to you. There is no 'paper person' involved. Its just you.

And the maritime law argument is empty noise. The application of law has nothing to do with maritime law. But the State, Federal and local laws passed by the various legislatures and executives respectively. Not only is your premise useless flotsam, its completely unnecessary.

The 'sovereign citizen' movement is based in series of profound fallacies about our law, almost always just made up by the 'sovereign citizen' himself. And has no relevance to the real world nor the actual law.

Which is why the record of the sovereign citizen movement in the actual courts, under actual law....is essentially perfect failure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311994

=========================================================
And you sir FAIL this class for today.

Idol1
Hitndahedfred

User ID: 826012
United States
02/13/2013 07:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Forgot to log in,,,

Remember this statement,,,
"Words are the law,,,and the law is words.

Their system is all about convolution and the IMPLIED (their implied) definitions of words and the hidden meanings behind those words.

Don't believe me?

Get a BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY,, and see for yourself.

IMPLIED CONSENT,,, = when you do NOT answer,,

This is a VERY deep rabbit hole indeed,,, but there IS light at the bottom.

Idol1

Last Edited by Hitndahedfred on 02/13/2013 07:52 AM
Each time a person stands for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he or she sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. And crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Few are willing to embrace the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. [Robert F. Kennedy]



[link to www.stricklychopped.com]

[link to www.ghi-engrs.com]
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Look her up. She published a book against big pharma "Mafia médicale" and is known for her fiscal resilience. She closed her bank accounts, her credit card, canceled her government medicare (trust me, just that is a HUGE move), she stopped paying her taxes. Went to prison for it cause she refuse a deal for parole cause it was made in her civil name, which is owned by the federal government, which she renounced.

Today shes free, really free. And they hate her for that.

Suck it Shill.
"

You're making quite a few claims that you haven't backed up with evidence.

You seem to be claiming that she no longer has to pay taxes nor is subject to the laws of Canada.

Prove it. Simply 'saying' it must be so doesn't change a thing any more than saying 'I can fly' will render you airborne if your flap your arms.

And she can make up any pseudo-legal reasoning she wants for refusing to sign the parole documents. The judge didn't accept her reasoning as valid, nor release her because she imagined that 'renouncing her name' somehow made her immune from the law.

He took her word that she was who she said she was.

And of course, she did time in prison....explicitly contradicting your claim that the name nonsense made her immune from the law.

Sorry, buddy....but your claims once again hit the windshield of reason and a stunning lack of evidence.
It will be obvious
User ID: 17314223
Canada
02/13/2013 07:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
By what right does a government unilaterally deem citizenship upon a human being? I do not recall entering a citizenship contract with any government. Government: please produce the contract.

This is the crux of the matter: one is born free, not a subject by virtue of a geographical happenstance.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 07:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"'heir system is all about convolution and the IMPLIED (their implied) definitions of words and the hidden meanings behind those words.'"

Implied according to who? Hate to break this to you..but you don't get to decide what the law is 'supposed' to mean. Nor do you get to 'imply' whatever meaning you wish to the wording of the law.

This is the great disconnect with the sovereign citizens and the reason for their near perfect record of failure. They *genuinely* believe that the law means whatever they imagine it does. And that the courts and the government are somehow bound or limited by whatever pseudo-legal gibberish they invent.

Um, no. They aren't. The gibberish is irrelevant. The law doesn't change just because you imagine it does. Nor do you get to decide what the law is supposed to mean.

That's what the legislature and judiciary are for. They're authoritative. You by yourself, aren't.

You can't get around that.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 08:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"By what right does a government unilaterally deem citizenship upon a human being? I do not recall entering a citizenship contract with any government. Government: please produce the contract.

This is the crux of the matter: one is born free, not a subject by virtue of a geographical happenstance."


Says you, citing yourself. Who says that citizenship must involve a 'contract'? You do, citing yourself. Which is meaningless....as you don't define any legal principle.

This is the crux of the matter. Just because you *imagine* that you're immune to the law doesn't mean that your imagination changes the law in the slightest. You don't decide which laws apply to you and which laws don't.

We do. And by 'we', I mean the people through their elected representatives. The people were here before you were. And they'll be here long after you're gone. They have authority collectively that you do not possess.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go to court and see how well your 'self declared laws' work for you. You'll quickly learn what virtually every 'sovereign citizen' before you to try that has learned:

Your imagination doesn't amount to much.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23290196
United States
02/13/2013 08:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Sovereigns are just people trying
to survive outside the NWO Matrix.

it is not they who seek a confrontation
it is the Matrix who seeks them to
put their shackles back on.


Living in the Matrix is nothing
but slavery and mind programming
to hide those shackles.

The best slaves are the ones
who know not they are slaves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862


That's the best way to describe it.

If you study the Fed Reserve & 'maritime law' you'll get it.
For example: Ever wonder why your Credit cards, Driver license, or ANY of your documents, your name is in upper cases?
like: JOHN SMITH. Not: John Smith. Look it up...it'll blow your mind.

I caution you though, you'll be going down a rabbit hole.
 Quoting: Tanarus


Ok, you have piqued my interest. Down the rabbit hole I go ..hf
 Quoting: Zuzu


rockon
Guarnere09

User ID: 34144455
United States
02/13/2013 08:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Look here nerds, my brother is doing this as we speak. He had a lawyer them fired him. The court sent him some papers so in return my bro sent them some papers asking them for their information for BOND work... My bond is my word. Well lets just say if there is a time limit for how long a court can delay and completely not respond to you for then its past due lol. They know if they send him paper work back he will control the contract.
Zuzu (OP)

User ID: 24583969
United States
02/13/2013 08:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
In truth the last truly free Americans were the natives here before before there was and America.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33610307
Canada
02/13/2013 08:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"And if you read what i wrote correctly-i did not say its as simple as declaring yourself anything in court.Its about using the correct syntax and not being tricked into purgering because of not understanding noth syntax and maritime law."

Nope. The entire basis of your argument is nonsense. There is no super secret status that has to be articulated in *just* the right way that magically makes you immune to all law. Its not syntax. Its that your argument is a baseless fallacy.

There's no requirement that the courts must first 'trick you' before they can exert authority. You made that up. They have authority based on geography. If you're in Maryland, the laws of Maryland apply to you. There is no 'paper person' involved. Its just you.

And the maritime law argument is empty noise. The application of law has nothing to do with maritime law. But the State, Federal and local laws passed by the various legislatures and executives respectively. Not only is your premise useless flotsam, its completely unnecessary.

The 'sovereign citizen' movement is based in series of profound fallacies about our law, almost always just made up by the 'sovereign citizen' himself. And has no relevance to the real world nor the actual law.

Which is why the record of the sovereign citizen movement in the actual courts, under actual law....is essentially perfect failure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311994



News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!