Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

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?

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?

The State murders everyday. They exempt themselves from the law, or write some other stupid-ass loop-hole or law to justify whatever the fuck they want..and if they can't get an actual law, the fucking President just writes a fucking Executive Order.

Your whole system is scam. Only a complete fucking idiot would consent to it.

J is ignoring me! Just because he cannot provide proof that I am subject to his government (or him).

Now, he cannot provide evidence I am subject to the law of the land.

So, he brings up stuff he "debunked" many pages ago to rehash.

Seems he is the one running.

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.....

Kings do not murder, they order others to murder for them.

That is exactly what J's President does last time I checked.

J is ignoring me! Just because he cannot provide proof that I am subject to his government (or him).

Oh, you know exactly what you to test your theory. You could do it it minutes. You just don't dare because you know your claims are meaningless gibberish.

Now lets demonstrate that again by watching you contradict yourself:

If everyone is a king and the law doesn't exist unless each individual consents....then why couldn't a murderer kill anyone he wish and just 'not consent' to the statutes against murder?

After all, he's a king too isn't he? Or is that just you?

Oh, was that your evidence to back your claim that the law of the land applies to me?

Self citing yourself citing others posts to not provide evidence I am subject to the law of the land?

SO INTELLIGENT, for a sovereign citizen, that is.

I never posted that, provide the quote and stop citing yourself, sovereign citi-er-son!

Take your meds, you are all over the place.

I am the one asking for evidence the law of the land applies to me, that is exactly what you posted, now back it up.

I do, however, agree, you are cracked up, J ck off.

Kings do not murder, they order others to murder for them.

Who could they possibly order? Remember, everyone is a king and laws don't apply without consent for anyone in this little fantasy of yours.

So why couldn't the murderer just 'not consent' to the statute against murder. Or the child molester 'not consent' to the statute against child molesting. Or the rapist 'not consent' to the statutes against rape.

Kinda painted yourself into the corner, didntcha?

I suspect this is about the spot where you start coming up for excuses why you can't shore up the gaping hole in your reasoning...exactly as you did for why you wouldn't dare test your theory on your 'kingship'.

Laughing....and so much for the keyboard commando.

I never claimed laws do not exist, I wanted proof or evidence those laws (any of them) apply to me.

Salad tosser J, I am out of here.

Have your nurse change your soiled sheets and take the computer away from you, you have had too much.

Peace out.

I do, however, agree, you are cracked up, J ck off.

Oh, you're just sore that I called you on your false bravado, buddy. Just because you won't dare test your silly little theory in the real world is no reason to take it out on lil' ol' me.

I'm just the guy that noticed that the emperor had no clothes. And even you don't buy your own nonsense.

Or do you *really* think that the murderer can just 'not consent' to the statutes against murder? The rapist can just 'not consent' to the statutes against rape? The child molester can just 'not consent' to the statutes against child molesting....

....and the laws suddenly disappear?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You keep running, I'll keep laughing. Deal?

I never claimed laws do not exist, I wanted proof or evidence those laws (any of them) apply to me.

Oh, the backpedaling begins! This is my favorite part.

So suddenly there *are* laws. But wouldn't the murderer be able to 'not consent' to them? I mean, he's a king too, right? And without consent, any law to keep him from murdering would be mere 'subjugation'?

Or was your 'subjugation' claims just more useless gibberish too?

No, they just join the State Dept, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, or any number of alphabet organizations, and then they become immune to laws and can murder, rape, and molest whoever the fuck they want with impunity.

Dumb ass.

Salad tosser J, I am out of here.

Have your nurse change your soiled sheets and take the computer away from you, you have had too much.

Peace out.

That's what I thought, buddy.

Keep that tail tucked snuggly between those tender cheeks. I'll be here if you ever want another silly 'sovereign citizen' conspiracy dismantled.

....or if you ever dare test your theory that the law doesn't exist and doesn't apply to you.

I won't hold my breath though. Have a great evening!

I said no such thing, go back and dig up the post, where you claim I said that... Search my user ID, I have not made too many posts, should not be hard...

Now, please answer my question;

What is the purpose/reasoning behind all CAPITAL's on government issued ID...

Btw, I am not against any government laws, I honour them... I simply want to have full disclosure on remedy options I have...

Something, to use your term - your "ilk" is not forthcoming on...Knowing full well, the average person does not know...

No, they just join the State Dept, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, or any number of alphabet organizations, and then they become immune to laws and can murder, rape, and molest whoever the fuck they want with impunity.

But wait.....didn't you say that what was 'moral violence' was judged by the individual? That they decide individually if their violence is moral? That they can use *any* basis they want?

If the 'alphabet agency' folks believe their violence is moral, then per your reasoning....

...it is!

Why then would you have a problem with 'moral violence'?

Or is this where you just start calling me names again and storm off in a huff?

No, that's what you said. I said it wasn't my job to force my moral code, but an individual had to choose their own moral code, and not the State through the threat and use of force.

You pulled the rest out of your ass.

As far as the alphabet agencies, it just proves the hypocrisy of the fucked up system that you worship.

What is the purpose/reasoning behind all CAPITAL's on government issued ID...

Who says there has to be a 'reason' behind it? You clearly have a conspiracy that you'd like to share with us on the topic.....probably having to do with some nonsense regarding 'paper people'.

So by all means, share it.

Dodging - it is what your "ilk" has mastered...

No matter, time is almost up...

Enjoying the wild weather ???

No, that's what you said. I said it wasn't my job to force my moral code, but an individual had to choose their own moral code, and not the State through the threat and use of force.

You pulled the rest out of your ass.

'Moral code'? I think you're 'rerememebering' what you said.

I asked you *specifically* who who gets to decide what 'moral' violence was. And you told me it was the individual.

Do you deny saying this? I'm more than willing to dig up the quote. Do you want to test who has the better memory about your words?

.....because I'm pretty sure I'm gonna win.

I ask again......since you already indicated that the *individual* decided what moral violence was, if the 'alphabet agency' folks decide that their violence was moral, then per your reasoning..


...it is.

Why then would you object to moral violence?

Dodging - it is what your "ilk" has mastered...

No matter, time is almost up...

Enjoying the wild weather ???

Smiling...so no conspiracy babble on why they use capitals on IDs?

<uh-oh....did I just turn the word ID into a corporation by putting it in caps? Drat!>

Ah. I was so looking forward to shredding that 'paper person' nonsense for you.

If you ever scratch together a cohesive argument and want to see if it holds up, I'll be about. Or as our friends in the north like to put it: I'll be aboot.

The difference is that an individual has to deal with the consequences of their choices and actions, and the State does not. It just covers them up with propaganda and useful idiots like you, who will accept whatever the State shoves down their throats.

Gee J, if you are going to talk proper Canadian, throw in a few "eh's"...

Not a paper person, a trust, you know it and I know it...

A cohesive discussion with a person who is trained on, and loves to dodge, is an oxymoron...

Time is almost up...

Enjoying the weather ????

I'll put you out of your misery, Shingen...and just quote you directly:





So...the individual gets to decide what moral violence is. Seems I'm *way* better at quoting you than you are. Here's the follow up where I ask you about what basis they can use. You get a little vague, but I think you made yourself clear enough (bold added for emphasis):



So is it safe to assume that the individual has the same ability as an Judge to apply any basis or justification for their moral violence?

Or are you still arguing that you didn't say this?

So.....if the 'alphabet agency' folks believed their violence was moral, why would you have a problem with it?

After all, they are individuals, yes? And the individual gets to decide what moral violence is. And they can use whatever basis or justification they want.

If not, why not?

imho its a logical progression,just as default contitutionalism was compromised and corrupted into what we see today,an interim political strategy would work toward restoring what we lost,but ultimately evolving towards a free self sufficient non centralised voluntaryists society.
j i absolutely agree that the foundation of law is mostly objective,but the subversion over the past few centuries is not.if you can get more objective than a framework based upon nature and the laws of the universe,we would all be gods.its isolated but integrated into the law and monetary system,which is really key.its far more important to have a fair and equitable monetary system.
so anarchy is not defined as no government although it strongly suggests that power always lends itself to corruption,especially in a corporatist environment.to say no rulers,well if superman was an autocrat,im sure voluntaryists would sign up to that but its still more complex than that.the ideal state is one of diversity but as in the case of nature that infers integration not isolation.

The difference is that an individual has to deal with the consequences of their choices and actions, and the State does not. It just covers them up with propaganda and useful idiots like you, who will accept whatever the State shoves down their throats.

I already asked you what justification they could use. And you said that the individual could any basis, and any justification.

Which would include 'propaganda' or anything else.

Any, meaning Any, of course.

So given that the individual is the judge of what moral violence is, and they can use any basis or justification they wish (as a judge could, per you), then wouldn't the violence of the alphabet agency folks be 'moral violence'...

....if they simply *decided* it was.

C'mon....if we're going full subjective justification for morality, then lets not pussy foot around. Lets apply your logic consistently.