Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,881 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,200,905
Pageviews Today: 1,600,611Threads Today: 366Posts Today: 7,135
03:10 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 01:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I overstand exactly how debt instruments work. BONDS are not NOTES, you are blending words again. FRNS are issued on BONDS, held by the FEDERAL RESERVE, the debt is owed to the Federal Reserve. And the Government has shit to pay them back with but the Goods and services in the US economy, you have just proven my point

No, you don't 'overstand'. Again, read the ruling. It explicitly applies the same logic for promissory notes as it does bonds as it does mortgages. You've simply blundered, reversing the obligation of debt from the debtor to the holder of the debt. Like assuming that if you take out a mortgage to buy a house, that the bank has to pay YOU every month.

Your reasoning is nonsense. There is no contractual obligation for the holder of a FRN. There is no passage of obligation for them to pay anything by holding the FRN. The holder of the note is the person who gets paid. Not the person who has to pay.

You got it backwards. You simply don’t know how debt instruments work. Not bonds, not mortgages, not promissory notes.

Exactly, the BONDS issued by Congress are held by the Federal Reserve, whoever holds the NOTES issued on the bonds pledge their goods and services produced with them to the FEDERAL RESERVE at face value.

You’ve *still* got it backwards. You do not owe the city a $1000 if you are the holder of a $1000 municipal bond. The holder of the bond (or mortgage, or promissory note) is the person who gets paid. Not the person who has to pay.

I can’t stress this point enough…but you don’t have a *clue* what you’re talking about. FRNs don’t involve any contractual obligation on the part of the holder. None. FRNs involve no obligation to pay anything on the part of the holder. None.

The holder is the person that the debtor has to pay money *to*. Not the other way around. Like so many of your ‘sovereign citizen’ folks before you, you’ve imagined a nonsense version of debt instruments that is convenient to your argument…

....but utterly irrelevant to the real world.
 Quoting: J 34311994


PROVE THAT NOTES ARE BONDS, they are not the same instruments. Nowhere are FRNS defined as BONDs, you effing MORON!

Do you really think you can change the LEGAL definitions and natures of debt and treasury official documents by just saying you can?

Now who is acting like the "LAW" in endowed in their own opinion? YOU ARE.

BONDS are not the same as Federal Reserve Notes, and never have been, your post that "holding a bond" is not synonymous with "holding a promissory note, FRN debt instrument.

You are a fucking liar any anyone can see it, even you and thats is all you got, retelling the same lie does not make it true.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Anyone reading this, take note that the resident FED cock sucker J refuses to answer ONE simple question:

WHO OWNS FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES?

Why is that? Because he claims they are proof the US Government owes HIM money! Well, how can the Government owe YOU money, J, if you do not even own the "markers" (as you call them) that you claim obligate the Federal Government to pay you for?

You are a cross talking monkey who has been trapped by your own bullshit posts.

Everyone reading, notice how when something relevant clearly contradictory to what he has posted is brought up, he does not respond to it and instead brings up comments made pages back. This covers up the citations and FACTS that show him to be a liar so he can act like they were never there.

Then he changes a word here or there and somehow states it relates to the posts I made with direct citations from SCOTUS cases, the law or official websites.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
PROVE THAT NOTES ARE BONDS, they are not the same instruments. Nowhere are FRNS defined as BONDs, you effing MORON!

In both the case of a bond or a note....the holder is the person that gets paid. And in the case you cited, the logic offered by the courts is explicitly applied to bonds, promissory notes and mortgages.

And *no where* does it indicate that the holder of the note owes anything. Or is contractually obligated to do anything.

You've comically blundered, insisting that the holder of the note, not the debtor, is the one that owes the debt. Nope. The debtor owes the debt TO the holder. And regardless of who the holder passes the debt to, the debtor still owes. That's what the passage you cited is indicating.

That the debtor is contractually obligated to pay who ever holds the promissory note. That's why mortgages, promissory notes and bonds can be bought and sold on the open market. And pass through many different hands. Because the debtor's obligation to pay follows the note.

At NO point does the holder owe anything. Nor is the holder obligated to pay anyone anything.

This is basic, fundamental, 101 debt instrument stuff here. And you do not get it. You still can't figure out that the 'holder' is the person who gets paid. The debtor is the person that owes the debt. You have it exactly backwards.


Do you really think you can change the LEGAL definitions and natures of debt and treasury official documents by just saying you can?


You’re not quoting ‘legal definitions’. You’re quoting yourself. And you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

You still think that if you hold a $1000 municipal bond…that you have to pay the CITY $1000. You don’t get that as the holder of the bond, the city has to pay YOU.

You’re embarrassing yourself.


BONDS are not the same as Federal Reserve Notes, and never have been, your post that "holding a bond" is not synonymous with "holding a promissory note, FRN debt instrument.


Ugh….you’re not reading what you’re responding to. You’re just reciting this nonsense narrative that you’ve invented. I’ve never said that bonds and promissory notes are the same. I’ve said that in the case you cited the logic the court offered is applied to bonds, notes and mortgages alike.

And in all three cases, the HOLDER of the debt is the person that gets paid. Not the person that owes money.

A FRN doesn't obligate its holder to do *anything*, nor does it pass any obligation to pay *anyone* to the holder. The holder is the person that gets paid. Not the person who owes the money.

You simply don’t understand debt instruments. Not bonds. Not mortgages. Not promissory notes.

Educate yourself...then come back. Because you simply lack a sufficient basis of knowledge to discuss the topic intelligently.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1310979
United States
02/19/2013 02:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Unless and until he can prove he has not pledged himself to the DEBT owed by society (he has not redeemed via demanded lawful money from Central banks) he will keep going and staying in jail

'pledging one's self to the debt owed by society' is not a benchmark of any law in Canada or the US. Its just another made up 'loop' that the sovereign citizen folks have made up that they believe the government limited buy.

Nope. It isn't.
 Quoting: J 34311994


The fuck it ain't you do not pay, you go to prison "until you pay your debt to society".

Again, you are citing your OPINION as LAW and I am calling You on your BULLSHIT, prove it!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

He's calling you on your nonsense. And it will not work!

Have fun in prison.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 02:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
WHO OWNS FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES?

It doesn't matter. As the Federal Reserve Note is just a placeholder. Its the *value* of the full faith and credit of the US that it transmits that allows you to purchase goods and services. That value is what you own as the holder of an FRN.

Your argument is akin to saying that if the bank owns your debt card, that the BANK owns everything you buy with it. That's nonsense. The debit card, like the FRN, is just a means of transmitting value.

You own everything you buy with each. As you own the value. Who owns the placeholder is irrelevant.

The FRN does not obligate the holder to do anything. It doesn't obligate the holder to pay anything to anyone.

Your entire theory is based on the comic fallacy that the HOLDER of the debt is the one who owes money. When back in reality, the holder of the debt is the one who gets paid.

You blundered and got it backwards. You just don't know what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal babble doesn't have any relevance to the law or the real world.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Make that 'debit card'.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1310979
United States
02/19/2013 02:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to deanclifford.info]
Dean Clifford update.
hf
 Quoting: Vic-chick13


In other words, the endorser is still in jail and the secrets of how he is to be released cannot be spoken about.

Unless and until he can prove he has not pledged himself to the DEBT owed by society (he has not redeemed via demanded lawful money from Central banks) he will keep going and staying in jail

Sorry to say, but he needs to know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not the WAY.

prayers to him that he might be free.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288
You are going to lose, you wanna do time like Jim. Listen very carefully to what Jim is saying.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32235185
Be careful folks. Don't listen to this nonsense. Don't believe a word. You've been warned!
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The fuck it ain't you do not pay, you go to prison "until you pay your debt to society".

Again, you've imagined a benchmark that doesn't exist. Whether or not he has 'redeemed' lawful money from central banks has nothing to do with whether or not the law has jurisdiction over him.

Its just meaningless gibberish that sovereign citizens tell themselves. It has nothing to do with the law.

Whether or not he's 'pledged to the debt he's owned by society' is irrelevant, as its imaginary. There is no such benchmark in the law. There is no such limit to government jurisdiction.

Once again, its just noise that sovereign citizen folks make up that is meaningless in the real world.

You citing yourself doesn't change the law. If you want to make a legal argument, quote the law and the courts.

Not yourself.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 590644
United States
02/19/2013 02:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Anything the People do that is outside the control perimeters established by the PTB that would put THEIR agenda at risk, consequentially makes us "enemies of the State"! Is this a most dangerous relationship one can imagine? And it is being PROMULGATED and FOMENTED by the very people who are arguably and Constitutionally our SERVANTS! They are using our taxpayer funded institutions and agencies to their maximum possible potential to promote, support, and expand this belief, and it puts anyone who opposes them in the crosshairs of our law enforcement and judicial offices!

Our Congressmen are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for allowing this outrageous perception and attack upon peace loving and law abiding Citizens! They have become slavish, sychophantic, elitist ENABLERS to the crimes of agency being heaped upon America! They are ACCEPTING A BENEFIT, for PROFIT and for PAY, in return for their COMPLICITY and SILENCE against the atrocities being committed on a hourly and daily basis against the Constitution and the People! This is BRIBERY, EXTORTION AND RACKETEERING! We should be able to turn the tables on what they did to Jim Trafficant many years ago, the Congressman who dared to speak truth to power. I think we live in different times today.. that was a shot over the bow, by the defacto.. and we learned from it. It exposed how CORRUPT and COMPLICIT the defacto truly is!

These are Title 42 1983 class crimes, among others, which ought to be formed into charges of treason and RICO, against EVERY Congressman and head of agency, who does nothing to stop this madness! Do you think this is possible? I say it is, and either a class action or an action joined by the People on a singular basis, so that the case cannot be dismissed against the whole, but only one at a time!

When the People who are within the Rights granted them, and who are only intent upon protecting our Constitutional integrity, are made TARGETS for harassment and even political prisoners, and worse.. FELONS and CRIMINALS, who then are shot and killed by the very people who are expected to protect and serve them.. it's TIME FOR IT TO STOP!!

I've complained bitterly to my Congresscritter, and they just go "ho hum", is there anything else?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 590644
United States
02/19/2013 03:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Private Credit vs Lawful Money:
[link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 03:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
WHO OWNS FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES?

It doesn't matter. As the Federal Reserve Note is just a placeholder. Its the *value* of the full faith and credit of the US that it transmits that allows you to purchase goods and services. That value is what you own as the holder of an FRN.

Your argument is akin to saying that if the bank owns your debt card, that the BANK owns everything you buy with it. That's nonsense. The debit card, like the FRN, is just a means of transmitting value.

You own everything you buy with each. As you own the value. Who owns the placeholder is irrelevant.

The FRN does not obligate the holder to do anything. It doesn't obligate the holder to pay anything to anyone.

Your entire theory is based on the comic fallacy that the HOLDER of the debt is the one who owes money. When back in reality, the holder of the debt is the one who gets paid.

You blundered and got it backwards. You just don't know what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal babble doesn't have any relevance to the law or the real world.
 Quoting: J 34311994

Citing yourself again, I see.

Where is the cite?

And where is the law that states the owner of the property has no rights to its use?

And FRN transmits NO VALUE the US treasury states so on the link I provided. An FRN is not a Debit card, its not a BOND and you fucking posting it "akin" to is utter and complete bullshit,

"THE NOTES HAVE NO VALUE FOR THEMSELVES" that is a direct quote from the US Treasury website.

Again, you are claiming the US owes you money so where is the law that states that?

CITING YOURSELF AGAIN all the while ranting about how "thats whut sovruns du"

keep posting, even though you post nothing new, it fun to watch you expose your own lies over and over hoping someone, besides you will believe them

And if ownership of the FRN has nothing to do with, why will not simply admit YOU do not OWN THE FRNS you use as money?

You have been weighed and measured and been found wanting, again.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 03:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The fuck it ain't you do not pay, you go to prison "until you pay your debt to society".

Again, you've imagined a benchmark that doesn't exist. Whether or not he has 'redeemed' lawful money from central banks has nothing to do with whether or not the law has jurisdiction over him.

Its just meaningless gibberish that sovereign citizens tell themselves. It has nothing to do with the law.

Whether or not he's 'pledged to the debt he's owned by society' is irrelevant, as its imaginary. There is no such benchmark in the law. There is no such limit to government jurisdiction.

Once again, its just noise that sovereign citizen folks make up that is meaningless in the real world.

You citing yourself doesn't change the law. If you want to make a legal argument, quote the law and the courts.

Not yourself.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Citing your own posts and self cites again.

Cites from me:

US Treasury website.
12 USC 411.
US VS Rickman (federal reserve notes are lawful money even though they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin via Rickman cashing his check with an open endorsement and using FRNS without a demand for redemption).

US V Ware (US Notes are lawful money and legal tender)

The FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money".

SCOTUS Case [link to supreme.justia.com]

Here is one more CITE for the idiot box that is Js head:
[link to www.google.com]

Where are your cites (non thisiswhatIsaysothere J cites?)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 03:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to www.jayadkisson.com]

"Jay Adkisson JAY D. ADKISSON

Jay Adkisson is best known as the creator of Quatloos.com and as a book author and popular legal and financial speaker on a variety of topics. Jay is an attorney who practices in the areas of creditor-debtor litigation, asset protection and wealth preservation, and captive insurance companies and insurance/reinsurance litigation. He is also a contributor to Forbes magazine."

Lets guess which poster best fits his online persona.

What could the "D" stand for, hmmmmmm?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Unless and until he can prove he has not pledged himself to the DEBT owed by society (he has not redeemed via demanded lawful money from Central banks) he will keep going and staying in jail

'pledging one's self to the debt owed by society' is not a benchmark of any law in Canada or the US. Its just another made up 'loop' that the sovereign citizen folks have made up that they believe the government limited buy.

Nope. It isn't.
 Quoting: J 34311994


The fuck it ain't you do not pay, you go to prison "until you pay your debt to society".

Again, you are citing your OPINION as LAW and I am calling You on your BULLSHIT, prove it!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288

He's calling you on your nonsense. And it will not work!

Have fun in prison.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1310979


Why would I go to prison? For demanding lawful money per 12 USC 411?

What would be the charge? Defendant believes he has the right to demand lawful money per 12 USC 411!!

For pointing out what 12 USC 411 states in black and white?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 04:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Its like the random sock drawer of conspiracy bullshyte. Where you're just throwing any inane nonsense you can find against the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.

The law simply doesn't recognize that any obligation to pay any debt is passed to the holder of a FRN. Not one case, not one law, not one court ruling.

That's just the sovereign citizen folks quoting *themselves*. Which means absolutely nothing. This is the crux of the theory killing problem with the entire sovereign citizen movement:

The law isn't bound to whatever pseudo-legal imaginary nonsense they want to make up. The sovereign citizen folks don't define one legal term, doesn't establish the jurisdiction of anything, doesn't decide if any given law is valid or invalid. No matter how desperately they try to convince themselves that they do..

...they still don't.

This is why the 'law' in their heads....doesn't match the law in the real world.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 04:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
US VS Rickman (federal reserve notes are lawful money even though they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin via Rickman cashing his check with an open endorsement and using FRNS without a demand for redemption).

"Via"? There's no 'via'? There's no condition. There's nothing that Rickman did that *made* FRNs into legal money. The courts cited constitutional authority delegated to congress as the basis of FRNs being lawful money.

Not Rickman.

FRNs are recognized as lawful money. Period. The courts recognized no distinction between legal tender and lawful money. Period.

You're inventing all of these exceptions and limitations and caveats to the Rickman ruling that exist only in your head. They don't exist in the actual ruling.

FRNs are recognized as lawful money by the courts. That you disagree is meaningless, as you're nobody. And your imagination doesn't change the law.

Get used to the idea.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Its like the random sock drawer of conspiracy bullshyte. Where you're just throwing any inane nonsense you can find against the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.

The law simply doesn't recognize that any obligation to pay any debt is passed to the holder of a FRN. Not one case, not one law, not one court ruling.

That's just the sovereign citizen folks quoting *themselves*. Which means absolutely nothing. This is the crux of the theory killing problem with the entire sovereign citizen movement:

The law isn't bound to whatever pseudo-legal imaginary nonsense they want to make up. The sovereign citizen folks don't define one legal term, doesn't establish the jurisdiction of anything, doesn't decide if any given law is valid or invalid. No matter how desperately they try to convince themselves that they do..

...they still don't.

This is why the 'law' in their heads....doesn't match the law in the real world.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Law in the real world? Now THAT IS FUNNY!!!

Not even supreme court justices agree completely on what LAW is!

Look back to cases BEFORE the Civil War and after, similar cases, with completely different rulings, turning back decades of "case law" same goes for before 1919 and 1933. There is NO law made by man that is not constantly changing, being nixed or just outright ignored.

Man made laws only exist in the minds of men, even the definitions of the words used are changed with boring regularity in Federal statutes.

Give me a break, J, you really are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissidence if you think the law is "real".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.
THAT IS THE LAW.

Do not like it?

TOUGH SHIT, you ignoring the law does not make it go away.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to www.jayadkisson.com]

"Jay Adkisson JAY D. ADKISSON

Jay Adkisson is best known as the creator of Quatloos.com and as a book author and popular legal and financial speaker on a variety of topics. Jay is an attorney who practices in the areas of creditor-debtor litigation, asset protection and wealth preservation, and captive insurance companies and insurance/reinsurance litigation. He is also a contributor to Forbes magazine."

Lets guess which poster best fits his online persona.

What could the "D" stand for, hmmmmmm?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


And once again, J dodges a post with more self citing bullshit.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 04:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money".

SCOTUS Case [link to supreme.justia.com]


Wheeler v. Sohmer, the case you just cited...doesn't say “FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money". In fact neither 'Legal tender' nor 'Lawful money' are mentioned once in any capacity in the entire ruling. Just because you post a link to a case doesn’t mean that the case magically becomes whatever you want it to be. Wheeler is a ruling on whether or not promissory notes are taxable under State law.

It doesn’t even address ‘legal tender’ or ‘lawful money’. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're not quoting Wheeler V. Sohmer...you're quoting yourself. And you're nobody. In the Rickman case, the courts made it ridiculously clear that they don't recognize the distinction between legal tender and lawful money.


"We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

US v. Gary Rickman



Exactly opposite of what you claim. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're making up these imaginary distinctions and citing yourself as the courts.

You’re not the courts. You’re not the law. And you citing you means nothing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Show me where man made LAW exists in the real world, J!

Come on, J, bring your real world to my house and lets see whose law is real!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money".

SCOTUS Case [link to supreme.justia.com]


Wheeler v. Sohmer, the case you just cited...doesn't say “FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money". In fact neither 'Legal tender' nor 'Lawful money' are mentioned once in any capacity in the entire ruling. Just because you post a link to a case doesn’t mean that the case magically becomes whatever you want it to be. Wheeler is a ruling on whether or not promissory notes are taxable under State law.

It doesn’t even address ‘legal tender’ or ‘lawful money’. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're not quoting Wheeler V. Sohmer...you're quoting yourself. And you're nobody. In the Rickman case, the courts made it ridiculously clear that they don't recognize the distinction between legal tender and lawful money.


"We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

US v. Gary Rickman



Exactly opposite of what you claim. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're making up these imaginary distinctions and citing yourself as the courts.

You’re not the courts. You’re not the law. And you citing you means nothing.
 Quoting: J 34311994


You are not the courts, You're not the law. "We find no validity in the claim which the defendant draws between lawful money and legal tender?"

The DEFENDANTS CLAIM was that FRNS are not lawful because they could not be directly redeemed for gold and silver coin.

The court did not rule there was NO DIFFERENCE between legal tender and lawful money.

The court ONLY disagreed with the defendants distinction.

Try again, esq.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 05:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.
THAT IS THE LAW.

Do not like it?

TOUGH SHIT, you ignoring the law does not make it go away.


And FRNs are lawful money. That you disagree is meaningless as you're nobody. Our system of laws isn't predicated on agreement with your personal opinion.

In a contest between you and the courts on legal definitions, the courts win every time. And the court says, with no ambiguity, that FRNs are lawful money:



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.....



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

US v. Gary Rickman

You say 'uh-uh'. Who cares? You're not a legal authority, nor are you citing one. Its just you..citing you.

And your personal opinion isn't the law. You can't get around that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
And for the record, AGAIN, I never agree with Rickmans claim that lawful money was only redeemable in Gold or silver coin.

Give me the quote or retract your lie.

I know you won't but this is a record and I never claimed that.

I do, however claim there is a difference between legal tender and lawful money and so does every dictionary and source on the subject!

So cite yourself some more, citing yourself about things I have posted MISTER JAY D. ADKISSON.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 05:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.
THAT IS THE LAW.

Do not like it?

TOUGH SHIT, you ignoring the law does not make it go away.


And FRNs are lawful money. That you disagree is meaningless as you're nobody. Our system of laws isn't predicated on agreement with your personal opinion.

In a contest between you and the courts on legal definitions, the courts win every time. And the court says, with no ambiguity, that FRNs are lawful money:



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.....



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

US v. Gary Rickman

You say 'uh-uh'. Who cares? You're not a legal authority, nor are you citing one. Its just you..citing you.

And your personal opinion isn't the law. You can't get around that.
 Quoting: J 34311994



12 USC 411 is not my opinion it is FEDERAL LAW and it spells out what it spells out, ignoring it will not change that, JAY D. ADKISSON.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33504741
United States
02/19/2013 05:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Excellent...

Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Anything the People do that is outside the control perimeters established by the PTB that would put THEIR agenda at risk, consequentially makes us "enemies of the State"! Is this a most dangerous relationship one can imagine? And it is being PROMULGATED and FOMENTED by the very people who are arguably and Constitutionally our SERVANTS! They are using our taxpayer funded institutions and agencies to their maximum possible potential to promote, support, and expand this belief, and it puts anyone who opposes them in the crosshairs of our law enforcement and judicial offices!

Our Congressmen are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for allowing this outrageous perception and attack upon peace loving and law abiding Citizens! They have become slavish, sychophantic, elitist ENABLERS to the crimes of agency being heaped upon America! They are ACCEPTING A BENEFIT, for PROFIT and for PAY, in return for their COMPLICITY and SILENCE against the atrocities being committed on a hourly and daily basis against the Constitution and the People! This is BRIBERY, EXTORTION AND RACKETEERING! We should be able to turn the tables on what they did to Jim Trafficant many years ago, the Congressman who dared to speak truth to power. I think we live in different times today.. that was a shot over the bow, by the defacto.. and we learned from it. It exposed how CORRUPT and COMPLICIT the defacto truly is!

These are Title 42 1983 class crimes, among others, which ought to be formed into charges of treason and RICO, against EVERY Congressman and head of agency, who does nothing to stop this madness! Do you think this is possible? I say it is, and either a class action or an action joined by the People on a singular basis, so that the case cannot be dismissed against the whole, but only one at a time!

When the People who are within the Rights granted them, and who are only intent upon protecting our Constitutional integrity, are made TARGETS for harassment and even political prisoners, and worse.. FELONS and CRIMINALS, who then are shot and killed by the very people who are expected to protect and serve them.. it's TIME FOR IT TO STOP!!

I've complained bitterly to my Congresscritter, and they just go "ho hum", is there anything else?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 590644
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

YOUR LAW right there. Now tell me again how there is not difference between lawful money and FRNS?

LOL!!
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 05:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The court did not rule there was NO DIFFERENCE between legal tender and lawful money.

The court ONLY disagreed with the defendants distinction.


Says you. The courts draw no distinction between lawful money and legal tender. And recognize the FRN as both.

Worse for your claims, no court has said that something titled 'legal tender' is no longer 'lawful money'. That's you citing yourself.

And you're nobody.

Oh, you offered us a link to Wheeler V. Sohmer....but that ruling doesn't say that something titled 'legal tender' is no longer 'lawful money'. In fact it makes no mention whatsoever about 'legal tender' and 'lawful money'.

Not one reference.

Which of course you knew. But really hoped we didn't. Your entire argument *relies* on us not checking your sources and not realizing that you're just making it up as you go along.

But I checked, didn't I? You don't know what you're talking about.

The courts have recognized FRNs as lawful money. You disagree. So what? You're not a legal authority. You don't define anything. You don't establish any jurisdiction. You don't tell us which laws are valid and which aren't.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the law. Get used to the idea.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 05:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
USC 411 is not my opinion it is FEDERAL LAW and it spells out what it spells out, ignoring it will not change that, JAY D. ADKISSON.

And no where does it indicate that FRNs aren't lawful money. It doesn't even define lawful money.

The courts did. And they found that FRNs are lawful money. That you disagree is irrelevant. The courts are authoritative, you aren't.

And 'Jay D. Adkisson'? Should I add that to the growing and bizarre list that your ilk has made for me?

Lets see. So far I've been told that I'm a government shill, a paid shill, an IRS agent, a lawyer, an employee of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a member of the illuminati, an 'elite', a Jew, and everyone from Bill Clinton to Marc Rich to Jay D. Adkison.

You sovereign citizens do love your labels. Though it is amusing to watch you babble on about yet another topic you know nothing about.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
And for the record, AGAIN, I never agree with Rickmans claim that lawful money was only redeemable in Gold or silver coin.

Give me the quote or retract your lie.


I've never said a thing about your 'agreement' with Rickman's claim. You're hallucinating.

I've said, clearly and repeatedly, that your agreement with the court ruling is irrelevant. As the courts don't ask you for permission before they rule.

You're nobody.

And you insisting that the FRNs aren't lawful money...while the courts indicating FRNs are lawful money has the same winner ever time.

The courts.

As again, you're nobody. Your personal opinion doesn't make law. Your personal opinion doesn't create precedent. You don't define any legal term. Ever.

But hey, link to Wheeler v. Sohmer again and babble about 'legal tender'. I'm sure it will work this time.

News