Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,597 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,338,270
Pageviews Today: 1,714,937Threads Today: 358Posts Today: 6,212
11:52 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32235185
United States
02/19/2013 05:27 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.
 Quoting: J 34311994

And you're somebody? Your ego will be your downfall.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 05:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
And you're somebody? Your ego will be your downfall.

Am I citing *my* authority to define legal terms? To determine the validity of a law? To determine jurisdiction?

No. I'm citing the law and the court's authority.

You are citing yourself. And you're nobody. You citing you is legally meaningless. That you believe otherwise is also meaningless. As your beliefs don't change the law.

I'm *still* waiting for more than useless personal opinion that titling something legal tender means its no longer lawful money.

And for any quote of me making reference to your agreement with Rickman's claims. Can I take it that you've abandoned that hallucination?

And this after your ilk's comic blunders on the nature of debt instruments. Where these poor, hapless souls tried to argue that the HOLDER of a promissory note is the one contractually obligated to pay the debtor.

Which, of course, was useless idiocy. The debtor is obligated to pay the holder. You sovereign citizens got it exactly backward.

Holding a FRN doesn't contractual obligate anyone to do anything. And it certainly doesn't obligate them to pay anyone anything.

And thus another series of sovereign citizen conspiracy gibberish is debunked.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/19/2013 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Law in the real world? Now THAT IS FUNNY!!!

Dude...its not you. You don't decide any legal matter. You don't decide which laws are are constitutional and which not, you don't decide what is 'lawful money' and what not. You don't decide any matter of jurisdiction for anyone. Not even yourself.

The law and the courts do.


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


They don't have to 'agree completely' as their threshold for excercising their authority is the same threshhold for we the people excercising ours: the majority.

We've never needed complete consensus on all legal matters to have objective law any more than we've needed 100% of the people to vote for a particular candidate for that candidate to be elected.

We've needed a majority decision by a legally authoritative judicial body.

And we have it.



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.



The law certainly changes with time. But your claim that unless there is one, unchanging absolute law than there is no law is as absurd as saying that unless English is as frozen and unchanging as Latin, that it isn't a language.

Of course it is.

Like language, caselaw exists in a particular state at particular moments in time. I can tell you what the law is *today*. The law may be changed by congress tomorrow or next week or next year. State law could be changed by the State. That doesn't mean there is no law. Its the same with precedent. I can tell you what precedent is *today*. But it can and will change with time.

But at every stage these are decisions are made by the judiciary using the authority delegated to them by the people.

Not ever by you, citing yourself. You are simply not delegated the people's authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution. Nor are you delegated the authority to create law. I just checked the constitution to make sure. You're not mentioned.

The people are. But you are not the people.

And before you start babbling about 'God's law', save your breath. You don't speak for God either.


Give me a break, J, you really are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissidence if you think the law is "real".


First off, its cognitive dissonance, not 'cognitive dissidence'. Don't hurt yourself trying to use a term you don't understand. You don't have the slightest clue what you the term means. Its just a generic, catch all pejorative to you that you apply ignorantly.

As you do virtually every legal term you try to use.

You just don't know what you're about.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 08:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I know you are a fat ass, ugly nerd who was most likely picked on in grade school and you became an attorney so you could get back at all the cool kids and pretty girls.

The picture on your website explains why you have to go to Canada and pay hookers to blow you.

Keep on doin what you are doing fatty, someday, you won't have to spend all those FRNS alone or with women you have to pay for.

I am out!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/19/2013 08:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to www.jayadkisson.com]

just so it does not get lost on this page!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1558482
United States
02/19/2013 08:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
From the page listed above "No attorney of the firm is a legal specialist in any area of practice, and no attorney of the firm has been approved as a legal specialist by any state board of legal specialization or similar body."
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/19/2013 10:48 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
You guys have beat this horse to death.

Statism is a dangerous mental illness.


"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: 32235185
United States
02/19/2013 11:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
From the page listed above "No attorney of the firm is a legal specialist in any area of practice, and no attorney of the firm has been approved as a legal specialist by any state board of legal specialization or similar body."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1558482

Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/20/2013 01:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

"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
02/20/2013 08:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/20/2013 04:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.
USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.

U.S. v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640, 645 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands),2003)"

Not beating a dead horse, just clearing up the outrageous lies on this thread.

Anyone can verify those cases, they are public record and they clearly support the posts I have made.
J
User ID: 17859047
United States
02/20/2013 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I know you are a fat ass, ugly nerd who was most likely picked on in grade school and you became an attorney so you could get back at all the cool kids and pretty girls.

So I take it from your little melt down....that you've abandoned the silly sovereign citizen claims and acknowledged they are useless flotsam?

Well that was easy!
J
User ID: 17859047
United States
02/20/2013 05:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Statism is a dangerous mental illness.

Says you.

Anarchy just isn't a viable option. It has no effective method of conflict resolution. People will disagree. When this happens, anarchy can't do a thing about it. Its schoolyard rules. With the strong oppressing the weak and *no* oversight or higher authority to appeal to for redress.

Its internally unstable as it has no unifying social mores, morals or ethics.

Its unsustainable because its predicated on the idea that there are no leaders....and obviously leaders will arise. Which will descend into factionalism very quickly. And from there, despotism. Which is a starkly worse system than a nation of laws.

Leadership isn't an aberration or fluke. Its as natural as breathing. LeaderLESS societies are unnatural. And simply won't last. Because in reality, all men *aren't* created equal. And some are simply more influential, persuasive, strong, intelligent, or charismatic than others. These men and woman will gain disproportionate influence...and inevitably are going to use that influence to impose their will.

Since anarchy has no method of enforcing *any* social more, when these leaders do impose their will....there's nothing you can do about it.

Anarchy is also externally vulnerable. As just because *you* choose anarchy doesn't mean the next town over will. And if they come for your resources, land and people.....they'll most likely win. As they'll be organized and under a single leader. And you'll just be a disorganized rabble.

And of course, as the icing on the 'there's a snowball's chance in hell of this system working' cake, you've completely subjectified moral violence. With any violence being moral if the individual simply decides it is. With any individual being able to use any basis or any justification they want for any violence they decide is moral to commit.

And don't bother denying saying both. As I'll just quote you again, and end your argument instantly.

For better or worse, Statism can address all of these problems. It does have a conflict resolution method, it does have leaders, its far more stable as it does impose social standards, it isn't any where near as vulnerable to outside threats as its organized, and it has more objective standards for moral violence.

Anarchy is just vastly inferior by virtually every practical measure. Which is among the man reasons it isn't practiced much.
J_

User ID: 17859047
United States
02/20/2013 05:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Not beating a dead horse, just clearing up the outrageous lies on this thread.

Anyone can verify those cases, they are public record and they clearly support the posts I have made.


US V. Rickman and the US v Ware say straight up 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. 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." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

......

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

U.S. v. Gary Rickman 638 F.2d 182


And Ware:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400


The courts have said, repeatedly....that FRNs are lawful money. That when you redeem your check for FRNs, you're receiving lawful money. When you spend a FRN, you're spending lawful money. That claims that FRNs are NOT lawful money are in error.

You say that FRNs aren't lawful money.

The courts win. You, citing you, doesn't mean a thing. Nor have your ilk *ever* won a court case on the premise that FRNs aren't 'lawful money'.

You were wrong on FRNs being lawful money, you were wrong that titling something 'legal tender' means its no longer lawful money, you were wrong on holding FRNs 'passing contractual obligations to pay' to the holder, you were wrong about the holder of debt being the one obligated to pay the debtor, you were wrong about the use of FRNs creating any form of jurisdiction.

In short...you don't know what you're talking about. And you're making a 'legal' argument that has no relevance in court.
J
J_

User ID: 17859047
United States
02/20/2013 05:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
just so it does not get lost on this page!

Uh-huh. I'll just add it to the bizarre and growing list your ilk have made for me.

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 paid shill for something called 'quatloos', a Jew (they were a little vague on the spelling), a communist, a socialist, a domestic terrorist, a 'trust fund kid' and everyone from Bill Clinton to Marc Rich to Jay D. Adkison.

Does that about cover it?

Are you starting to see the folly of *you* citing yourself on a topic you know nothing about?
J
skeptic
User ID: 1558482
United States
02/20/2013 06:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie. You have lied about the cases the other poster has referenced time and again. You all need to let it go.

United states code and two of the three cases cited prove that Federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money on demand. The Ware case is about US notes, which are not Federal reserve notes and have never been.

By all means continue to lie about the cases, since it actually made me look into them and look up definitions of the notes and laws in question.
J_

User ID: 17859047
United States
02/20/2013 08:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie. You have lied about the cases the other poster has referenced time and again. You all need to let it go.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482


More accurately, I've cited the case directly and repeatedly. For example.....I've cited US. V. Rickman as indicating that the courts recognize FRNs as lawful money.

You say I'm lying. The case says otherwise:

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.

U.S. v. Gary Rickman 638 F.2d 182


You don't like what the ruling says. So you pretend it doesn't exist. But the world doesn't vanish just because you close your eyes. The Rickman ruling *still* indicates that FRNs are lawful money.

This is a fundamental lesson that that you sovereign citizen folks need to learn: just because you ignore precedent doesn't mean it goes away. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the law at all. It never has.

United states code and two of the three cases cited prove that Federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money on demand. The Ware case is about US notes, which are not Federal reserve notes and have never been.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482


And the courts have found, repeatedly, that FRNs are lawful money. At the moment, you can exchange an older FRN for a newer one. The courts have said, straight out that FRNs are lawful money. Remember, both Omer Ware and Gary Rickman LOST their cases based on the claim that FRNs weren't lawful money. And their convictions were upheld on appeal.

Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you silly folks insist that the conviction of both men proves that you must be *right*. Um, no. Their reasoning was *rejected*, their convictions *upheld*. They both went to jail.

But it will be different for you, huh? Good luck with that.

As for Ware not being about federal reserve notes....you're clueless:


The defendant testified in his own behalf to the effect that he did not believe that he had a legal obligation to file an income tax return for the reason that the income which he received was not dollars, but, rather, Federal Reserve notes which were mere promises to pay and not redeemable in gold or silver. He admitted that he had filed no income tax returns in 1973, 1974 and 1975.

US v. Ware (1979)

[link to bulk.resource.org (secure)]


Ware specifically cites federal reserve notes. You don't know what's in Ware because you've never read the case. You've simply aped what you've been told to think by *other* sovereign citizen folks who haven't read the case either. And then laughably assume you must be right because you agree with *each other*.

Your willful ignorance doesn't change the law. Your imagination doesn't change the law. Calling anything that contradicts what you choose to believe 'lies' doesn't change the law.

By all means continue to lie about the cases, since it actually made me look into them and look up definitions of the notes and laws in question.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482


Um, 'Skeptic'....as you just demonstrated above with your spectacular blunder regarding whether or not Ware is citing Federal Reserve Notes, you've never looked into these cases. You simply repeated what you were told to think mechanically, without thought or question. Something an actual skeptic would never do. The Ware ruling cites Federal Reserve Notes 8 times...yet you insist that the ruling wasn't in reference to FRN?

Obvious nonsense.

If you'd *actually* looked at the case you'd have known quite quickly that Ware was *specifically* contesting FRNs as dollars. The first of EIGHT references to Federal Reserve Notes is only the 6th sentences into the ruling .

Yet you never did. And just because you imagine Ware to be different than it actually is doesn't mean that reality is obligated to accomidate you. Nor does the Rickman ruling change because you don't like that it indicates that FRNs are lawful money too.

And its this meaningless willful ignorance and self delusion of the sovereign citizen folks that renders their perspective useless. As the law doesn't change just because they don't like it. Nor do the courts recognize all of the sovereign citizen made up legal definitions and imaginary limitations to jurisdiction or the law.

Oh, and as the above citations demonstrate irrefutably, my citations are *infinitely* more accurate than yours. Mostly because I've actually read the cases you never bothered to. Next time, read the cases before you comment on them. It will help you avoid more blunders like the one you just made.
J
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/22/2013 12:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J ... for goodness sake ... haven't you at least taken a break and slept since I last posted. Stop making everyone so upset. After all the hundreds of replies and comments you have "debunked" has there not been ONE poster you could encourage to continue in his quest for justice in an unjust system. With your intellect and expertise .... ha .. hummmmmmmm .. could you not stop for just a short minute and realize you and people like you cause this world's majority of grief and misery. Shame on you for being so haughty.
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/22/2013 12:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I saw your page J. Impressive. What on Earth are you doing on GLP? Better yet, what are you doing on LinkedIn? J, with the mile long resume you possess, I find myself expecting better from you?!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19837777
Canada
02/22/2013 12:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie. You have lied about the cases the other poster has referenced time and again. You all need to let it go.

United states code and two of the three cases cited prove that Federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money on demand. The Ware case is about US notes, which are not Federal reserve notes and have never been.

By all means continue to lie about the cases, since it actually made me look into them and look up definitions of the notes and laws in question.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482


J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482



J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482




J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482



J, its pretty clear you are just here to lie.
 Quoting: skeptic 1558482




$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$


5aiamwithpigchefIdol1burnitburnithiding5a
J_

User ID: 17859047
United States
02/22/2013 05:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Save, of course.....my every citation was accurate.

But don't let something as trivial as what the cases *actually* say get in the way of a good rant, my little canuck. Its never stopped your ilk before.
J
Miss Kitty

User ID: 34725458
United States
02/22/2013 10:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J ... I swear you never sleep!
Here, I am seriously interested in your input. Here is another thread for you ........
Thread: OPPT Media Press Release of 2-4-13…”The Public Trust Forecloses on Major Corporations, Including Banks”
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 590644
United States
02/23/2013 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The "redemptionists" are correct, and here is why:

Thread: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments (Page 50)

The federal reserve banking system is a mutual credit system but with bad bookkeeping. It was implemented under Roosevelt by first removing lawful redemption by specie in step one and then in step two assuming ownership of the people's credit which in turn was assigned by license to the banks.

The so-called "loan" is a hypothecation of the promissory note in a process that renders the value of the promissory note into a credit entry. The credit entry is now spendable into circulation.

Because of the "eleventh marble" principle (only the principle is created - never the interest) (usury by another name) the so-called lenders end up owning everything.

A mutual credit monetary system must of necessity be owned by the people who are the ultimate creditors. Good bookkeeping would show a positive balance associated with every "person's" name or SS account where such an account would be assessable under proscribed conditions. I recommend a study of Binary Economics and the Mondragon Cooperative for examples of how such a system might be administered.

A mutual credit monetary system still needs professional administration, but rather than positive interest on the hypothecated promissory note, a better principle for paying salaries of professional administration is by a monthly service charge of minimal amount determinate by the nature of the original instrument PLUS a demurrage charge on circulating currency and positive accounts of record. The underling principle that philosophically supports the demurrage charge is that all people benefit by a smooth and trustworthy money system - therefore it is the obligation of all users to pay for salaries of professional administration.

More to follow on record keeping and performance bonds.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
02/24/2013 12:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
THE EXON: [link to www.usa-the-republic.com]

[The Exempt Elect]

The following is presented "as is", just as it was first published in 1983 in a book titled "The Tontine Government." This transmission is not offered for general consumption, as only a very small percentage of what you will understand or appreciate its contents, and it is for that very small percentage that it is primarily being offered.

[EXON: "(In Britain) one of four yeomen of the guard who act as commanding officers in the absence of higher authority. Also called EXEMPT."]

The Federal Reserve Act transferred the money making powers of the United States to a private group of bankers who then set up the fractional reserve system of banking. Under the charter granted to this private corporation, there was a stipulation that if the American people did not agree with its operation, the people had 20 years to oust the corporate charter. They could (or were entitled to do this) by the use of an ancient Common Law Writ called a Quo Warranto ["quo warranto" means "by what right?"] After 20 years it becomes a matter of Public Policy; Public Policy being a part of the Law of Nations under the Law Merchant. Twenty years puts us to the year 1933, which is the infamous year the Congress suspended our Public National Money System (Gold Standard, House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933) and put an end to the American people being able to "pay" their debts "at law." Upon reading the debates of the 73rd Congress in 1933 on the subject of the gold standard, one learns that on June 5, 1933 America became bankrupt; being unable to tender in "payment" of debts.

But that is only part of the story. What you probably also missed was the part where America was re-insured by a credit policy and this was done under the Statute of 19 George II c. 37. At the stroke of the pen, American lost its Constitutional government in "payment" of debts and its 18 delegated powers, along with its allodial land titles and all the "law" that went with it. Instead of "paying" taxes to support a democratic-republican form of government, where the people are sovereign, we now have a parliamentary-republic in which the Congress is the sovereign. But more importantly, all we can do is a compelled performance in "discharge" (NOT PAYMENT) of debts. These "discharges" are nothing more than insurance premiums to the Federal Reserve, which is a Tontine policy which is re-insured by a credit policy.

The idea of a Tontine scheme is nothing new, but has existed in one form or another since the Roman Empire. As time went on, it became more sophisticated up to the point where it is today. The first Tontine started in America in 1791. By the year 1880, Tontines were very numerous and were quite corrupt. There was practically no end to their power due to the immense amounts of money involved. As a result of this money power, the Tontine insurance companies were buying up businesses and controlling the government. As a result, the Tontines became so corrupt and gross that they threatened the American family and the very basis of the United States of America. This corruption spurned the Armstrong Committee in the year 1905 to investigate the Tontine insurance companies. After a long investigation, the committee recommended that the state legislatures pass legislation banning Tontine schemes. This was done under the non-forfeiture statues. The owners of these Tontine schemes saw that their whole world was about to collapse because of the pending legislation regarding their schemes. They immediately went to work to establish a federal system to both broaden the scope of their operation and avoid the problems of operating in individual states. This was the start of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The Tontine policy is a gambling policy, or what is called in the law, a wagering policy. The cunning plot to reinstitute the Tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve is by all means cunning and despicable. This is the basic groundwork used to enslave the American people.

Their next move was the suspension of the Public National Money System (HJR 192) in "payment" of debts, and then 5 years later, the Erie Railroad v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64 case, which opened the flood gates to flood the country with insurance script, debt and credit in "discharge" of debts.

The plot to enslave the people thickens even more because until the advent of (HJR 192) and the Erie Railroad decision, the Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy mentioned earlier. The second a person touches the credit system of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture being the use of the communal credit, Maritime Law is a credit system, and finally, you have created an insurable interest because you used the credit system of the commune. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities that you can think of are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit.

In the case of De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. A person's involvement in Maritime Law (communal credit of the Tontine, HJR 192) means you are on a voyage and hopefully it will be successful (gambling) and you will make a profit. Under limited liability for the payment of debt, the limited liability is provided by the insurance premiums you tender (your taxes).

Common Law insurance is for the security of the family unit and not for profit. This means that you want to place yourself under the Common Law rather than the Maritime Law, unless you are greedy, corrupt and in control of the system! The principles of Maritime Law is not family, but rather for profit, and under Maritime Law you can be (and are) compelled to carry insurance (pay taxes -- a form of protection money) and you are now beginning to see the mess this country is in and how we got here.

The gold bill being promoted by Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is another hoax by the enemy in order to destroy the Federal Reserve, thereby allowing the Class "A" stockholders of the Tontine to foreclose on the United States Treasury, whereby all the land titles will be totally locked up along with the highway system that has the U.S. in front of the route number, the Library of Congress will be confiscated and all the truths about the corrupt Tontine will disappear forever. These are only a few of the foreclosures to come. Rep. Ron Paul's gold bill is a private gold system owned by the owners of the Tontine swindle. This gold bill will not repeal HJR 192, nor will it be a Public National Gold Standard owned by "We the People" in "payment" of debt.

The Formula of the Federal Reserve is as follows:

Fractional Reserve Banking is a Tontine policy, re-insured by a credit policy in the form of ex-chequer annuitie bills generating an over insurance, which is split with the Class "A" stockholders of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury. This split started in 1946 to fund their socialistic programs whose effect catalized small investment and over-consumption, postulating traded discounted script, compounding on Tontine principles, whose price premium is being confiscated through insurable interest at positive premium, positive premium, reflecting inflation.

As one can see, the freedom movement has been taking an historical approach to the problem and this has been in error because nowhere in the history of the world today have we dealt with the issues that we are confronted with today.

An interesting fact, as a result of the Tontine (Federal Reserve), HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision, is this: there is no longer an immovable law (Common Law) of the world to guide commerce. Everything is in collision through a Tontine (gambling policy) for profit (greed) under limited liability for the payment of debt, ala John Calvin and the Teutonic Order. For more information on the Teutonic Order, see the "Black Book of the Admiralty" 4 volumes, the authority on Admiralty Law. The above Tontine, HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision, 304 U.S. 64, has now turned private enterprise, not free enterprise, into public law under the International Law of Marine Insurance under the guise of National Government. This law of insurance (limited liability for the payment of debt) has superseded the Common Law and equity. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law.

Since HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision replaced the immovable law (Common Law) with the movable law (law of marine insurance), then it follows that there are in reality, no Common Law juries today. Today's juries decide no issues of Law. Today's judges, state and federal, are now more properly Vice Admiralty Chancellors ruling in marine insurance and the juries merely advisory councils which serve as the conscience of the Vice Admiral (after being instructed by him). The legislature (sovereign) has already ruled by passing the statute initially. One has to remember that we as a people and a nation are bankrupt and insolvent, being unable to determine our own destiny because we cannot truly "pay" our debts. You are not responsible today for what you do, Common Law, however, is full responsibility for your actions.

Organized religions of today teach the Tontine principles of the Teutonic Order. Proof of this is that the church will not marry you unless you get permission from the State. The license, incidentally, is purchased with Tontine insurance script. This license requirement is a direct result of the church having its franchise to operate from the State under limited liability for the payment of debt (forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors). For more on John Calvin, read Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822. For profit, because the church is tied into the Tontine credit system and is gambling to make a profit. Ultimately, what this all means is the One World Corporate Church (EXON) operates for profit while its debts are passed on to the reprobate or non-elect slaves on Space Ship Earth. This "good ship Earth" concept is important because it allows the law of maritime insurance and not the Common Law to operate and our freedoms are based on the Common Law as prescribed by our Founding Fathers.

The law of maritime insurance (Tontine) imposition is destroying families by turning them into warring cannibals. The order of the day will soon be murder, rape, robbery, distrust and lack of respect for your fellow man, along with unidentifiable fatherhood to be a corporate cog in their machine to worship their coal-tar god of EXON. This will all work for the benefit of the people of EXON (the elect) who will be exempt from all liabilities. These EXON are the last survivors of the Tontine swindle, such as George Rapp and his Harmony Society that became the first Tontine court case in America. In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the people's right to enter into a commune and each surrender his property into one common stock for the mutual benefit of all. Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts 23 (1836). It is this very case that opened the door for the destruction of America and its precious document called the "Constitution of the United States." The Class "A" stockholders of the Tontine Life Insurance Corporation of limited liability for the payment of debt called the Federal Reserve. They will own everything on the face of the Earth and the non-elect reprobates will be locked into performing as slaves. The non-elect will be forced to use all the EXON's phony products so the EXON can show a profit. Thomas Jefferson said it will take mankind at least 2,000 years to overthrow this slavery should we become totally locked into it.

This may sound like an insane story, but it is true, nevertheless.

Lee Brobst - Lecturer
J_

User ID: 34311994
United States
02/24/2013 08:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The "redemptionists" are correct, and here is why:

No, they're not. Federal reserve notes are recognized as 'lawful money' by the courts. So the 'redemptionists' claim that FRN's aren't lawful money isn't correct.

And their follow up claims that by 'demanding redemption', that their federal income tax obligations are magically discharged is just more delusional poppycock.
J
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 590644
United States
02/25/2013 09:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul (Page 87)
federal reserve notes are a private currency you pay tribute/user fee to use them. web search: irrecusable obligation Get mad, and demand the Peoples interest free money United States Notes at your bank.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 136140


Discussion of the private credit vs lawful money is found here: [link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]
J_

User ID: 34311994
United States
02/25/2013 10:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Nodding...and I've asked the folks there what possible relevance a 'demand for redemption in lawful money' has with their obligation to pay income taxes.

They avoided my question like it were on fire. It would be like saying if you demand a new photo on your driver's license....you no longer have to pay sales tax.

It just doesn't follow. Nor could they provide the slightest explanation even conceptually. To say nothing of legally or rationally.

The fact that FRNs are recognized as lawful money by the courts makes the entire claim more than a little silly.

And the final nail in the coffin of this conspiracy? Ask who the 'many people who haven't paid taxes in 10 years' are. And ask for evidence. They'll suddenly get really vague, really quick.
J
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1558482
United States
02/25/2013 01:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Nodding...and I've asked the folks there what possible relevance a 'demand for redemption in lawful money' has with their obligation to pay income taxes.

They avoided my question like it were on fire. It would be like saying if you demand a new photo on your driver's license....you no longer have to pay sales tax.

It just doesn't follow. Nor could they provide the slightest explanation even conceptually. To say nothing of legally or rationally.

The fact that FRNs are recognized as lawful money by the courts makes the entire claim more than a little silly.

And the final nail in the coffin of this conspiracy? Ask who the 'many people who haven't paid taxes in 10 years' are. And ask for evidence. They'll suddenly get really vague, really quick.
 Quoting: J_



The refund checks keep getting sent. maybe YOUR opinion on the matter has nothing to do with what the IRS does?

There are people getting refunds and have for many years without a word of protest from the IRS.

No matter what the courts or J post here, title 12 states what it states.

J needs to get it through his head that HIS opinion on the matter really does not mean JACK, either.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1558482
United States
02/25/2013 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The "redemptionists" are correct, and here is why:

No, they're not. Federal reserve notes are recognized as 'lawful money' by the courts. So the 'redemptionists' claim that FRN's aren't lawful money isn't correct.

And their follow up claims that by 'demanding redemption', that their federal income tax obligations are magically discharged is just more delusional poppycock.
 Quoting: J_


Tell that to the IRS, they must not be as smart on income taxes as you are.

They have a phone number to report tax fraud, call them and tell them about all the people doing it so they can put them in prison. You posting about it here does not mean anything.

If you do not like it, tell the IRS to stop refunding peoples returns!!!
J_

User ID: 34311994
United States
02/26/2013 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Tell that to the IRS, they must not be as smart on income taxes as you are.

Because of 'some people' that use this imaginary tax loophole to not have to pay any taxes? Yet when you ask for WHO these people are and evidence to back up the claim that they don't have to pay taxes because of a redemption request...

....the 'redemption' folks suddenly get vague. They can't actually cite anyone its ever worked for. Nor present any evidence that even ONE return has ever been 'exempted' because of the redemption request.

They can't show us anywhere in the law where demanding 'redemption for real money' somehow absolves one of the obligation to pay taxes. Nor any court case indicating as much. Nor can they even describe why this might ever be the case....as it doesn't make the slightest sense.

As 'redemption' requests and income taxes have nothing to do with each other.

Its another legal unicorn born and bred in the mind's of 'sovereign citizens'. With no evidence of any connection to the outside world.
J

News








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