Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,397 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 908,522
Pageviews Today: 1,198,502Threads Today: 267Posts Today: 4,890
10:06 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32235185
United States
02/18/2013 03:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
That's right! Call it what you want. Stealing is a crime. Murder is a crime. It's just gobbledygook of words from some other men trying to enslave the masses.

Stop believing in secret handshakes. And believe in the Easter Bunny or Uncle Sam. LOL


You're the 'Uncle Sam' guy? The poor, hapless soul who kept trying to insist that Uncle Sam was a real guy we sent our taxes to?

You seem a little confused.
 Quoting: J 34311994

Are you the tax cheat named Marc Rich?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/18/2013 03:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are you the tax cheat named Marc Rich?

Nope. Should I add 'Marc Rich' to the growing and elaborate list that you folks have invented for me?

Though kudos on being the first person to *ask* me, rather than make 'sovereign citizen' style bold declaration about a topic you know nothing about.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32235185
United States
02/18/2013 03:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are you the tax cheat named Marc Rich?

Nope. Should I add 'Marc Rich' to the growing and elaborate list that you folks have invented for me?

Though kudos on being the first person to *ask* me, rather than make 'sovereign citizen' style bold declaration about a topic you know nothing about.
 Quoting: J 34311994

Don't worry your ego is far to big for Marc Rich and his pal Bill. LOL

How is the criminal enterprise racket going? lol
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/18/2013 03:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
How is the criminal enterprise racket going? lol

Again, you seem a bit confused.

Can I take it from your wholesale abandonment of the topic of 'sovereign citizens' that you've conceded that your claims are useless flotsam?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/18/2013 08:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
FRNs are lawful money that shall be redeemed in lawful money.

The courts said that Rickman received lawful money when he cashed his paycheck and used them to pay for things. (well, he did, since he endorsed them as being LAWFUL via contract).

AS ISSUED FRNS ARE NOT LAWFUL MONEY THEY ARE LEGAL TENDER, the "court" cannot change the FACT that 12 USC 411 states "they shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand" and J's ignorance of contract endorsement cannot either.

Once endorsed as LAWFUL MONEY, they become lawful money.

For those who think 12 USC 411 is just being misapplied, so be it, but you cannot provide one court case to back that claim, nor can you provide any reason why FRNS cannot be redeemed for lawful money on demand.

Now, if you do not like that FRNS shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand, write or call your congress critter and tell them to CHANGE 12 USC 411, till then, it is the law. That is how it work in your Government, right "J"?

But, until that law is CHANGED it is the LAW, like it or not, you cannot have it both ways.


DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/18/2013 09:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Gee, look at this:

"But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt."

[link to supreme.justia.com]



So, there it is "J" and everyone else, YOU "indorse in blank" any DEBT instrument, you OWN THAT DEBT.

YOU are obligated to pay it the second you endorse it or get it "hand to hand".

No cites there of anyone but the SCOTUS!
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/18/2013 09:42 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I too, used to be a control freak statist... then I took an arrow in the knee. tomato
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based of five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, or county commissioners." - Edward Abbey

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner

"If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothing, and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order." - Firefly
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/18/2013 09:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Gee, look at this:

"But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt."

[link to supreme.justia.com]



So, there it is "J" and everyone else, YOU "indorse in blank" any DEBT instrument, you OWN THAT DEBT.

YOU are obligated to pay it the second you endorse it or get it "hand to hand".

No cites there of anyone but the SCOTUS!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


That is EXACTLY what I have been posting about this entire thread! YOU assume ALL liabilities of "bills" and "notes" when you indorse them!

HAHAHAHHHAAh, whatcha got to say now, J?

OWNED.
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/18/2013 11:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Well J.?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/18/2013 11:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The courts said that Rickman received lawful money when he cashed his paycheck and used them to pay for things. (well, he did, since he endorsed them as being LAWFUL via contract).

The court said straight up that FRNs were lawful money. There was no mention of 'contracts' or anything else as the basis of this beyond plain ol' congressional authority. Nor any mention that the FRNs were lawful money *because* Rickman did anything.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

US V. Rickman


They couldn't be clearer. But just incase you needed another stroll down 'completely obvious' lane:


Defendant claims error in the instruction that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. We have held that they are.

US V. Rickman


Resolving the issue. FRNs are lawful money. 'Sovereign Citizen' folks can 'say' that they aren't....but their personal opinions really don't amount to much.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34722151
United States
02/18/2013 11:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Repeat this and remember it!
I am an individual.
I am unique.
I have a name and a history all of my own.
My thoughts are my own.
I have free will and a conscience.
I have the RIGHT to think how I will for myself.
I have the RIGHT to question and analyze what is presented to me.
I have the RIGHT to doubt and to praise whomever and whatever I will!
I have the RIGHT to believe what I want!

I am an individual human being FIRST!
Citizen second.


Now why would having a free mind able to question be considered terrorism, racism, or any other "ism"?
Why do they fear this?
Think about it and you'll have your answer.

Step outside the box and look in from the outside, you will be amazed, you will have fear, but atleast one aspect of your existance is free by free will.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
So, there it is "J" and everyone else, YOU "indorse in blank" any DEBT instrument, you OWN THAT DEBT.

You've got it backwards. It doesn't say you 'own' the debt. It says you *have* the debt. That the debt is now owed TO you.

Not BY you, as the confused sovereign citizen argument has made out.

Whosoever holds the promissory note is owed the debt. And that the promissory note can be passed from hand to hand, but that regardless of who holds it....the debtor to pay the promissory note is obligated to pay the holder, whom ever they may be.

You've awkwardly tried to twist this into the HOLDER somehow being contractually obligated to so something, or somehow obligated to pay something.

As usual, the sovereign citizen folks have it exactly backwards. The holder is obligated to do nothing. Nor is contractually bound in any way. Nor assumes any responsibility for the debt. The holder is who the debt is paid to. Its the debtor, not the holder, that is contractually bound and obligated to pay.

And so it is with the dollar. If I hold a $20 bill, its the government that is obligated to pay me, as the holder of the bill. I don't suddenly acquire the debt myself, nor am I obligated to pay it to anyone. And whom ever I give or trade the $20 bill, the government is similarly obligated to pay them.

Not the other way around. No one is 'contractually obligated' to do a thing if they are the holder of government debt.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34552356
United States
02/19/2013 12:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Echo On
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
That is EXACTLY what I have been posting about this entire thread! YOU assume ALL liabilities of "bills" and "notes" when you indorse them!

And you don't know what you're talking about. The holder of the promissory note is the person the debt is own TO. Not the person the debt is owned FROM.

A promissory note is a promise to pay from a debtor to the holder of the note. In the case of Wheeler V. Sohmer, its a note of the Southern Railway Company held in safety deposit box in NY. Whom ever holds this promissory note is the party that Southern Railway Company is obligated to pay. Not the person that is obligated to pay Southern Railway Company.

You've got it exactly backwards.

Again, read the actual ruling. They're trying to decide if the promissory note itself is taxable, as its allows the holder to GET MONEY.

Why in God's name would they be taxing a debt where the holder has to PAY money? You aren't taxed for debts that you owe. You're taxed for income that you receive. And the State of NY is arguing that inheriting a promissory note where someone is obligated to PAY YOU is income.

Do you finally get it?

Sigh....as usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I too, used to be a control freak statist... then I took an arrow in the knee.


Laughing!

Okay, that's funny.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I am an individual.
I am unique.
I have a name and a history all of my own.
My thoughts are my own.
I have free will and a conscience.
I have the RIGHT to think how I will for myself.
I have the RIGHT to question and analyze what is presented to me.
I have the RIGHT to doubt and to praise whomever and whatever I will!
I have the RIGHT to believe what I want!


All true. But the law and courts aren't bound to what you believe.

And that's the grand disconnect for the sovereign citizens. They keep asserting that if THEY make up some pseudo-legal gibberish, that the courts are obligated to abide it.

Um, no....they aren't.
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/19/2013 12:14 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
And so it is with the dollar. If I hold a $20 bill, its the government that is obligated to pay me, as the holder of the bill. I don't suddenly acquire the debt myself, nor am I obligated to pay it to anyone. And whom ever I give or trade the $20 bill, the government is similarly obligated to pay them.

Not the other way around. No one is 'contractually obligated' to do a thing if they are the holder of government debt.
 Quoting: J 34311994


That doesn't make any sense.

If you hold a $20 bill, what exactly is the government obligated to to pay you for? Besides the fiat $20 Federal Reserve Note, what else is the government going to use as payment? Gold? Silver? Shares of Goldman Sachs?
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based of five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, or county commissioners." - Edward Abbey

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner

"If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothing, and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order." - Firefly
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/19/2013 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Now J. be nice. You can not blame people for wanting desperately to return, and reclaim, the country that we all loved, before the Lawyers and other politicians highjacked it.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
f you hold a $20 bill, what exactly is the government obligated to to pay you for? Besides the fiat $20 Federal Reserve Note, what else is the government going to use as payment? Gold? Silver? Shares of Goldman Sachs?

Again, you don't understand how debt instruments work. If you say, buy a municipal bond for $1000 dollars, that doesn't mean that you are now obligated to pay $1000 to the city as the holder of the bond. That means that the city is obligated to pay you as the holder of the bond.

The sovereign citizen folks have, in one of the most obtuse and comical misunderstanding of debt instruments I've ever seen....insisted that since you hold the $1000 municipal bond....that it is YOU that owes the city money.

That's blithering nonsense. Its the city (debtor) that owns the holder (you) a $1000.

In the case of the dollar, its a debt instrument redeemable for 'lawful money'. Which at the moment, includes another FRN. The FRN transmits actual value and has actual buying power. You could, for example, go down to the local Burger King and trade FRNs for a whopper, or go to best buy and trade them for a big screen TV.

These are currency, lawful money and legal tender in our country. And they most definitely transmit tangible value to the holder of the debt.

But an obligation FROM the holder to PAY a debt? That's useless idiocy. The holder is obligated to do nothing nor owes nothing. He's the person the debt is paid to.

The sovereign citizen folks have it exactly backward.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Now J. be nice. You can not blame people for wanting desperately to return, and reclaim, the country that we all loved, before the Lawyers and other politicians highjacked it.

I can understand the desire to 'reclaim' something you think you've lost.

But the HOLDER of a promissory note being obligated to pay the DEBTOR?

That's just someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. And the sovereign citizen movement is just riddled with such nonsense arguments.
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/19/2013 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
And so it is with the dollar. If I hold a $20 bill, its the government that is obligated to pay me, as the holder of the bill. I don't suddenly acquire the debt myself, nor am I obligated to pay it to anyone. And whom ever I give or trade the $20 bill, the government is similarly obligated to pay them.

Not the other way around. No one is 'contractually obligated' to do a thing if they are the holder of government debt.
 Quoting: J 34311994


That doesn't make any sense.

If you hold a $20 bill, what exactly is the government obligated to to pay you for? Besides the fiat $20 Federal Reserve Note, what else is the government going to use as payment? Gold? Silver? Shares of Goldman Sachs?
 Quoting: Shingen


I think this is a legitimate misunderstanding on the part of J.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I think this is a legitimate misunderstanding on the part of J.

Sorry, Miss....but the holder of a promissory note isn't the one obligated to pay anything. They are the ones the debt is paid to. Its the debtor that is obligated to pay, not the holder.

You sovereign citizen folks have it backwards. You've profoundly misunderstood what debt instruments actually are.

Which might explain why SC arguments just don't work well in court.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34722151
United States
02/19/2013 12:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I am an individual.
I am unique.
I have a name and a history all of my own.
My thoughts are my own.
I have free will and a conscience.
I have the RIGHT to think how I will for myself.
I have the RIGHT to question and analyze what is presented to me.
I have the RIGHT to doubt and to praise whomever and whatever I will!
I have the RIGHT to believe what I want!


All true. But the law and courts aren't bound to what you believe.

And that's the grand disconnect for the sovereign citizens. They keep asserting that if THEY make up some pseudo-legal gibberish, that the courts are obligated to abide it.

Um, no....they aren't.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Very True!
But why did you cut the rest of it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34722151
United States
02/19/2013 12:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I am an individual.
I am unique.
I have a name and a history all of my own.
My thoughts are my own.
I have free will and a conscience.
I have the RIGHT to think how I will for myself.
I have the RIGHT to question and analyze what is presented to me.
I have the RIGHT to doubt and to praise whomever and whatever I will!
I have the RIGHT to believe what I want!


All true. But the law and courts aren't bound to what you believe.

And that's the grand disconnect for the sovereign citizens. They keep asserting that if THEY make up some pseudo-legal gibberish, that the courts are obligated to abide it.

Um, no....they aren't.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Very True!
But why did you cut the rest of it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34722151


Law requires you to acknowledge it in the first place.
If it is unconstitutional and if enough people refuse to partake then it becomes null.
This is fact.
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/19/2013 12:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Now J. be nice. You can not blame people for wanting desperately to return, and reclaim, the country that we all loved, before the Lawyers and other politicians highjacked it.

I can understand the desire to 'reclaim' something you think you've lost.

But the HOLDER of a promissory note being obligated to pay the DEBTOR?

That's just someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. And the sovereign citizen movement is just riddled with such nonsense arguments.
 Quoting: J 34311994


J. I understand the working of an attorney's mind is not as uncomplicated as mine, or some of the others on this thread. However, unless you have been under a rock for the last decade or so, why do you not see the utter devastation that was our country? Our healthcare is a mockery, Drs. going to prison if they attend an emergency patient before the new god panel goes to work at 9:00 am and makes the decision as to what they (the emergency patient that is not a member of Congress) may have administered as treatment and meds. Watching the power mongers rip our wonderful Constitution to shreds by enacting the most draconian laws ever stuffed up anyone's butt! The blatant fraud by buying Presidents (or those who are passed off as such)and usurping the choice of the people. What about the strange "suicides" and cremations of live humans instead of due process? You, of all people, would undoubtedly be the first to say "innocent until proven guilty!"
Why, on God's green Earth, would you say you have no idea what the people think they have lost? OH sorry ... may I say "God" in your presence or in a conversation directed toward you?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
If it is unconstitutional and if enough people refuse to partake then it becomes null.

If its unconstitutional according to who? You singularly declaring that some law you don't like is 'unconstitutional' doesn't amount to much. The judiciary is the body authorized to adjudicate cases that arise under the constitution.

Not you.

And this is where the sovereign citizen argument just falls apart. They insist that any law they don't like is unconstitutional *because they say so*. Um, no...it isn't. None of the 'sovereign citizen' folks decide which laws are valid and which not, they define no legal term, they define no jurisdiction.

The law and the courts do.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I understand the working of an attorney's mind is not as uncomplicated as mine, or some of the others on this thread. However, unless you have been under a rock for the last decade or so, why do you not see the utter devastation that was our country? Our healthcare is a mockery, Drs. going to prison if they attend an emergency patient before the new god panel goes to work at 9:00 am and makes the decision as to what they (the emergency patient that is not a member of Congress) may have administered as treatment and meds. Watching the power mongers rip our wonderful Constitution to shreds by enacting the most draconian laws ever stuffed up anyone's butt! The blatant fraud by buying Presidents (or those who are passed off as such)and usurping the choice of the people. What about the strange "suicides" and cremations of live humans instead of due process? You, of all people, would undoubtedly be the first to say "innocent until proven guilty!"
Why, on God's green Earth, would you say you have no idea what the people think they have lost? OH sorry ... may I say "God" in your presence or in a conversation directed toward you?


And what does any of that have to do with the holder of a promissory note being the person a debt is paid to? Or the profound, almost parody-like misunderstandings that the sovereign citizen folks have made regarding the nature of debt instruments?

Which are the topics I'm addressing.
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/19/2013 01:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I think this is a legitimate misunderstanding on the part of J.

Sorry, Miss....but the holder of a promissory note isn't the one obligated to pay anything. They are the ones the debt is paid to. Its the debtor that is obligated to pay, not the holder.

You sovereign citizen folks have it backwards. You've profoundly misunderstood what debt instruments actually are.

Which might explain why SC arguments just don't work well in court.
 Quoting: J 34311994


J. I am not yet a "sovereign citizen folk." I do understand the person you are saying is all wrong and backward, is wondering what the US gov. will use to make the money, we are forced to use as legal tender, worth what it is suppose to be, or what the gov. passes off as worth a certain denomination of "money." The paper the Fed Res prints is worthless. What will the gov. use to make it worth the denomination it has printed on the face. Face value.
We were taken off the gold standard and the silver standard. We are getting ripped off ... Yes .. J. ..?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 01:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
But why did you cut the rest of it?

As the rest made a break from simple statements of fact which I quoted....to statements of baseless conjecture and subjective personal opinion.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 01:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I do understand the person you are saying is all wrong and backward, is wondering what the US gov. will use to make the money, we are forced to use as legal tender, worth what it is suppose to be, or what the gov. passes off as worth a certain denomination of "money."

Its worth what we agree it is...as is all fiat currency.

The person I'm contradicting is asserting that the holder of Federal Reserve Notes now *owes* the denomination. And is now under implied contract to pay it.

Which wrong. Laughably, embarrassingly wrong. The holder of promissory notes is the person the debt is paid to. Not the debt is owed from.

Now you can debate whether the debtor (the US) has anything of value to pay the holder (anyone with a FRN in their pockets). And then we get into the nature of fiat currency, arguments about 'intrinsic value', etc.

But at no point does holding a FRN obligate you to do anything, or transfer any debt TO you. The entire idea is useless nonsense.

And that's the idea that I'm taking apart.

News