Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,772 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,838,557
Pageviews Today: 2,586,804Threads Today: 679Posts Today: 14,456
08:57 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Wow gasp

"Does The Jones Act Put Us Under Maritime Law By Our Birth Certificate? Why Is Your Name Spelled In All Capital Letters"

"Maritime admiralty law considers you a maritime admiralty product, simply because you were birthed out of your mother's water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain gives a certificate of manifest to the port authorities.

The reason you are required to have a Birth Certificate is because at the time of your birth there is an exchange of money to cover hospital costs. The dock signs your birth certificate simply because that is what the ship is tied to, you will need a dock to sign your birth certificate."


[link to reality-bytes.hubpages.com]
 Quoting: Zuzu


What about home births or other situations in which there was no exchange of money?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.

For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.

Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The key here is money and always has been.

The Republic did not last long for one reason: it had to borrow money it could not pay back and has not paid back.

Read what the founding fathers wrote about being in debt to other nations, it happened and it ended the Sovereignty of the Government and its allegiance to protecting rights of the people.

You cannot be sovereign and be in DEBT, it is impossible.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 01:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Wow gasp

"Does The Jones Act Put Us Under Maritime Law By Our Birth Certificate? Why Is Your Name Spelled In All Capital Letters"

"Maritime admiralty law considers you a maritime admiralty product, simply because you were birthed out of your mother's water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain gives a certificate of manifest to the port authorities.

The reason you are required to have a Birth Certificate is because at the time of your birth there is an exchange of money to cover hospital costs. The dock signs your birth certificate simply because that is what the ship is tied to, you will need a dock to sign your birth certificate."


[link to reality-bytes.hubpages.com]
 Quoting: Zuzu


What about home births or other situations in which there was no exchange of money?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.

For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.

Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Let's say no midwife and no record of the birth made ,no witness. Just parents present. Born in the U.S Are you saying that the mere act of using currency becomes a contractual agreement? A contract would require both parties to be cognizant of all obligations and responsibilities. The mere act of using currency could not be considered a contractual agreement.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28689320
United States
02/13/2013 01:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
sovereign means you do not belong to any country
citizen means you do

sovereign citizen is a stereotype.
it's a label.

that's is how control works -

don't feed the machine - you are better then a label, stereotype or number.

You are an individual.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 01:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
United States Contract Law


Statute of Frauds

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds).
[edit]Types of Contracts Implicated
Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:
Land, including leases over a year and easements
Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)
Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)
Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC)
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Wow gasp

"Does The Jones Act Put Us Under Maritime Law By Our Birth Certificate? Why Is Your Name Spelled In All Capital Letters"

"Maritime admiralty law considers you a maritime admiralty product, simply because you were birthed out of your mother's water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain gives a certificate of manifest to the port authorities.

The reason you are required to have a Birth Certificate is because at the time of your birth there is an exchange of money to cover hospital costs. The dock signs your birth certificate simply because that is what the ship is tied to, you will need a dock to sign your birth certificate."


[link to reality-bytes.hubpages.com]
 Quoting: Zuzu


What about home births or other situations in which there was no exchange of money?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.

For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.

Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Let's say no midwife and no record of the birth made ,no witness. Just parents present. Born in the U.S Are you saying that the mere act of using currency becomes a contractual agreement? A contract would require both parties to be cognizant of all obligations and responsibilities. The mere act of using currency could not be considered a contractual agreement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Actions make contract. You are free to argue (in their courts) fraud by omission when it comes to the use of private currency (Federal Reserve Credit) if you would like.

The fact is, the Government relies on caveat emptor all the time. They are under no obligation to educate you on the law, there are free libraries to do that. The public notice is right there on the FRN:

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

Their only authorized used is spelled out in 12 USC 411. That is available on line and in public libraries free of charge, nothing obligates you to use them, nor is the government obligated to inform you of every obligation you take on by their use.

12 USC 411 spells out they are "redeemable in lawful money on demand" just because you are ignorant of the that fact and did not act on is not the Governments fault.

You (and everyone) is given a TRIAL if they want you in prison or property seized for good, you could bring up the fact the contract details were not fully disclosed, or you could tell them you would have been redeeming lawful money the whole time if you had known.

In that case, your argument would have legal standing (fraud by omission on the part of the Government or the Federal Reserve). But, nobody has done that.

"Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense" but fraud by omission is. The law is there, it is public record, you are just ignorant of it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 01:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Minors cannot enter into contracts. While their parents may do so on their behalf , since this would be a contract with a term of more than one year it would have to be made in writing and signed by all parties to be enforceable. When the minor child reaches adulthood it would have to again in writing , enter into the contract willingly in order to be enforceable.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 01:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
...


What about home births or other situations in which there was no exchange of money?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.

For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.

Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Let's say no midwife and no record of the birth made ,no witness. Just parents present. Born in the U.S Are you saying that the mere act of using currency becomes a contractual agreement? A contract would require both parties to be cognizant of all obligations and responsibilities. The mere act of using currency could not be considered a contractual agreement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Actions make contract. You are free to argue (in their courts) fraud by omission when it comes to the use of private currency (Federal Reserve Credit) if you would like.

The fact is, the Government relies on caveat emptor all the time. They are under no obligation to educate you on the law, there are free libraries to do that. The public notice is right there on the FRN:

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

Their only authorized used is spelled out in 12 USC 411. That is available on line and in public libraries free of charge, nothing obligates you to use them, nor is the government obligated to inform you of every obligation you take on by their use.

12 USC 411 spells out they are "redeemable in lawful money on demand" just because you are ignorant of the that fact and did not act on is not the Governments fault.

You (and everyone) is given a TRIAL if they want you in prison or property seized for good, you could bring up the fact the contract details were not fully disclosed, or you could tell them you would have been redeeming lawful money the whole time if you had known.

In that case, your argument would have legal standing (fraud by omission on the part of the Government or the Federal Reserve). But, nobody has done that.

"Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense" but fraud by omission is. The law is there, it is public record, you are just ignorant of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Ahhhhhh . Now I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
United States Contract Law


Statute of Frauds

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds).
[edit]Types of Contracts Implicated
Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:
Land, including leases over a year and easements
Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)
Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)
Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC)
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Simply put, Federal Reserve NOTES are private property. They are property of the Federal Reserve member banks, their use is defined in Title 12 of the Federal Code.

The owner of the FRN is clearly posted on it, the Seal of the Federal Reserve is there, the boarders are well defined. They are not YOURS, you are using them, that implies contract. Your signature (endorsement) on any NOTE or bank transaction assumes the use of the Federal Reserve.

That is consensual and voluntary endorsement of a private company (The Federal Reserve).

It is a contract and nothing is compelling you to do it. 12 USC 411 clearly spells out you have the right to demand lawful money in ALL your transactions.

That is legal, lawful and contractual, you endorse and use their property, you owe them a fee AND agree to pay by their rules.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
...


Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.

For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.

Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Let's say no midwife and no record of the birth made ,no witness. Just parents present. Born in the U.S Are you saying that the mere act of using currency becomes a contractual agreement? A contract would require both parties to be cognizant of all obligations and responsibilities. The mere act of using currency could not be considered a contractual agreement.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Actions make contract. You are free to argue (in their courts) fraud by omission when it comes to the use of private currency (Federal Reserve Credit) if you would like.

The fact is, the Government relies on caveat emptor all the time. They are under no obligation to educate you on the law, there are free libraries to do that. The public notice is right there on the FRN:

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

Their only authorized used is spelled out in 12 USC 411. That is available on line and in public libraries free of charge, nothing obligates you to use them, nor is the government obligated to inform you of every obligation you take on by their use.

12 USC 411 spells out they are "redeemable in lawful money on demand" just because you are ignorant of the that fact and did not act on is not the Governments fault.

You (and everyone) is given a TRIAL if they want you in prison or property seized for good, you could bring up the fact the contract details were not fully disclosed, or you could tell them you would have been redeeming lawful money the whole time if you had known.

In that case, your argument would have legal standing (fraud by omission on the part of the Government or the Federal Reserve). But, nobody has done that.

"Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense" but fraud by omission is. The law is there, it is public record, you are just ignorant of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Ahhhhhh . Now I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


You are very welcome! Your understanding of contract law is very valuable and it is clear you understand contracts, endorsements, notice and TRUST.

The "IN GOD WE" Trust was formed in 1933 by FDR and congress, title 12 is part of that trust. Before that, the redemption clause on Federal Reserve Notes (and other NOTES) was written on them:

Like this one:
[link to usrarecurrency.com]

It is still "legal tender" but is redeemable, on demand in Gold coin.

FRNS have the "redeemable in lawful money" clause in title 12, it used to be on the notes, but it was changed to be harder to find, but still be there.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
United States Contract Law


Statute of Frauds

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds).
[edit]Types of Contracts Implicated
Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:
Land, including leases over a year and easements
Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)
Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)
Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC)
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Simply put, Federal Reserve NOTES are private property. They are property of the Federal Reserve member banks, their use is defined in Title 12 of the Federal Code.

The owner of the FRN is clearly posted on it, the Seal of the Federal Reserve is there, the boarders are well defined. They are not YOURS, you are using them, that implies contract. Your signature (endorsement) on any NOTE or bank transaction assumes the use of the Federal Reserve.

That is consensual and voluntary endorsement of a private company (The Federal Reserve).

It is a contract and nothing is compelling you to do it. 12 USC 411 clearly spells out you have the right to demand lawful money in ALL your transactions.

That is legal, lawful and contractual, you endorse and use their property, you owe them a fee AND agree to pay by their rules.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Understood. Thanks for the patience and the very articulate explanation. No easy way around it then. Unless you go off and live in the wilderness...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Minors cannot enter into contracts. While their parents may do so on their behalf , since this would be a contract with a term of more than one year it would have to be made in writing and signed by all parties to be enforceable. When the minor child reaches adulthood it would have to again in writing , enter into the contract willingly in order to be enforceable.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


You are correct again, in the US, that contract is "selective service" it is the first federal form most "new adults" sign because they are told too.

Drivers licenses are another, as are voters registrations, bank accounts, mail delivery, ZIP codes and on and on.

ALL of which are contracts and most of which have a FEE attached. When you pay for them without a demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 you are just making it worse!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 01:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
United States Contract Law


Statute of Frauds

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds).
[edit]Types of Contracts Implicated
Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:
Land, including leases over a year and easements
Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)
Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)
Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC)
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Simply put, Federal Reserve NOTES are private property. They are property of the Federal Reserve member banks, their use is defined in Title 12 of the Federal Code.

The owner of the FRN is clearly posted on it, the Seal of the Federal Reserve is there, the boarders are well defined. They are not YOURS, you are using them, that implies contract. Your signature (endorsement) on any NOTE or bank transaction assumes the use of the Federal Reserve.

That is consensual and voluntary endorsement of a private company (The Federal Reserve).

It is a contract and nothing is compelling you to do it. 12 USC 411 clearly spells out you have the right to demand lawful money in ALL your transactions.

That is legal, lawful and contractual, you endorse and use their property, you owe them a fee AND agree to pay by their rules.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Understood. Thanks for the patience and the very articulate explanation. No easy way around it then. Unless you go off and live in the wilderness...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


No true my proxy posting friend! Read this thread, you will get it.

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

Learn to control your contractual endorsements and demand lawful money per 12 USC 411, it really is pretty simple and sound legally.

"Without prejudice" Peace.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 02:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Minors cannot enter into contracts. While their parents may do so on their behalf , since this would be a contract with a term of more than one year it would have to be made in writing and signed by all parties to be enforceable. When the minor child reaches adulthood it would have to again in writing , enter into the contract willingly in order to be enforceable.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


You are correct again, in the US, that contract is "selective service" it is the first federal form most "new adults" sign because they are told too.

Drivers licenses are another, as are voters registrations, bank accounts, mail delivery, ZIP codes and on and on.

ALL of which are contracts and most of which have a FEE attached. When you pay for them without a demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 you are just making it worse!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Wow. It is indeed a rabbit hole. Not as simple as it seemed to me at first glance. Thanks for all the great info. I would presume that even if one went to great lengths to extricate themselves it would not bode well for them, and would probably be difficult to do on a long term basis. Unless like I said they headed out into the wilderness, not an option for most of us.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1470358
United States
02/13/2013 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The video might have been a little silly but very interesting, a bit scary really.

Looks like I have a lot to learn.
 Quoting: Zuzu


it's all true.

Organic Act of 1871
is where we lost our Republic
and our Constitution.

The last soldiers to fight for
true freedom and the Constitution
were the Confederacy in 1865.

In 1871, the US became a CORPORATION
and every citizen became an asset
of the US CORPORATION.

But every single speaker who tours
and speaks on this subject winds up
dead.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862


that's something i hadn't heard about, thanks for the info. let's face it folks, those of us who are informed and are able to think critically, objectively, with an open mind are very few. i would say less than 5%. Imagine how stupid people are to not have figured out that the world trade center bldgs, especially the third one, bldg7, that most people are unaware of, were brought down with demolition explosives and that the planes were only a cover and an excuse for the never ending war on terror and of course, the patriot act, national defense authorization act, drones killing us, etc, etc. how stupid to not be able to tell that those bldgs came down the same way that bldngs do when they are demolished with explosives. this is the meaning of the emperor wears no clothes story. people, we are in trouble here.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 02:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
United States Contract Law


Statute of Frauds

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds).
[edit]Types of Contracts Implicated
Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:
Land, including leases over a year and easements
Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)
Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)
Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC)
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


Simply put, Federal Reserve NOTES are private property. They are property of the Federal Reserve member banks, their use is defined in Title 12 of the Federal Code.

The owner of the FRN is clearly posted on it, the Seal of the Federal Reserve is there, the boarders are well defined. They are not YOURS, you are using them, that implies contract. Your signature (endorsement) on any NOTE or bank transaction assumes the use of the Federal Reserve.

That is consensual and voluntary endorsement of a private company (The Federal Reserve).

It is a contract and nothing is compelling you to do it. 12 USC 411 clearly spells out you have the right to demand lawful money in ALL your transactions.

That is legal, lawful and contractual, you endorse and use their property, you owe them a fee AND agree to pay by their rules.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Understood. Thanks for the patience and the very articulate explanation. No easy way around it then. Unless you go off and live in the wilderness...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507


No true my proxy posting friend! Read this thread, you will get it.

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

Learn to control your contractual endorsements and demand lawful money per 12 USC 411, it really is pretty simple and sound legally.

"Without prejudice" Peace.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Thanks for the thread. Appreciate the info.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7043507
Greece
02/13/2013 02:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
This is a great thread. bump
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.
"

Actually, none of that is relevant. We're not under
'maritime law' nor does any court recognize maritime law as the basis of all US laws. The font on a birth certificate is meaningless. Those are all just made up contrivances of 'sovereign citizens' citing themselves. None of them have any relevance to the actual law.

Whether or not a birth is witness in a 'family record' like a bible is irrelevant. And the use of federal reserve notes by anyone is completely irrelevant to the application of birth certificates, as dollars don't form a 'contractual agreement'. That's just more pseudo-legal nonsense.

There's really not a single part of this that you got right.
Eagle # 1
User ID: 7633733
United States
02/13/2013 02:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
One FIRST HAS TO recognize WHOM you are addressing in the court room/local,state, federal 'governments' are ALL CORPORATIONS, disguising themselves as governments AND, using the power/excuse of CONTRACT LAW in the courts THEY control, to control YOU !

First they must dehumanize you to a 'non-entity, fictional person', etc. to put you on their CORPORATE LEVEL by sending you an ALL CAPITAL summons, letter and/or reading your name in court and asking IF that person is here. If you answer up, the word person in legalize MEANS you have reduced yourself to their level OF fictions person, NON entity ! Now your playing THEIR GAME, and they can treat you as such, by their CORPORATE law system.

There are many ways around this AND you can have any charge except assault or murder DROPPED, by simply confirming that minutes are being taken, and then saying, " I am a beneficiary of the Trust "as explained by a judge of 13 years on the bench who researched it and posted same on the net under the title of.....
" The Matrix and the U.S. Constitution ". Read it and GET an EDUCATION !

Eagle
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 02:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

The owner of the FRN is clearly posted on it, the Seal of the Federal Reserve is there, the boarders are well defined. They are not YOURS, you are using them, that implies contract. Your signature (endorsement) on any NOTE or bank transaction assumes the use of the Federal Reserve.



Nope. There's no 'implied contract' with the US of the federal reserve note. And no 'signature' by using them.

You guys just keep making this stuff up. None of it has any relevance to the law or the outside world.


You (and everyone) is given a TRIAL if they want you in prison or property seized for good, you could bring up the fact the contract details were not fully disclosed, or you could tell them you would have been redeeming lawful money the whole time if you had known.

In that case, your argument would have legal standing (fraud by omission on the part of the Government or the Federal Reserve). But, nobody has done that.



Nonsense. There is not 'contract' with the use of Federal Reserve Notes nor does any court or law recognize the use of federal reserve notes as the basis of the jurisdiction of law. Jurisdiction is established geographically...not by the use of Federal Reserve Notes. Your The entire concept is pseudo-legal gibberish that has never worked in court, ever.

And no, your argument would not have 'legal standing'. The reason that 'no one has ever done that' isn't because they didn't know this super secret status that makes them immune to the law. Its that no such status exists and your entire argument is imaginary.

Virtually every time 'sovereign citizens' try this nonsense in court, they lose. Because they really have no idea what they're talking about and have made up all of these arguments from their own imagination. Like calling a tree a 'tea cup', it really doesn't change a thing about the tree. Similarly, calling yourself a 'sovereign citizen' doesn't change a thing about your relationship with the laws. Hell, call yourself 'Santa Claus' if you'd like. You still have to pay your taxes and abide traffic laws.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7633733
United States
02/13/2013 02:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
bump
Vic-chick13

User ID: 1310261
Canada
02/13/2013 02:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"And if you read what i wrote correctly-i did not say its as simple as declaring yourself anything in court.Its about using the correct syntax and not being tricked into purgering because of not understanding noth syntax and maritime law."

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

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

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

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

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



 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33610307

[link to www.syncrenicity.com]
Great site for the most current, accurate info on this and many other subjects. Including the beautiful being in the that vid.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17551129
Canada
02/13/2013 02:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The Constitution is a contract with the people and the federal government. If the federal government breaks the contract, then the contract is void. It is as simple as that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24760791


Since none of u seem to know what the h-ll u are talking about ill chime in.
First the Constitution is not a contract it is a trust arrangement written by “We the People” making the government trustees. (Read the Preamble)

As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]”
63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247


Second most do not realize that is basic understanding in law that the people are self governing just like the US GOV. ( a federal corporation) is self governing
28 USC § 3002 - DEFINITIONS
(15)“United States” means—
(A)a Federal corporation;
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

The people are self governing by the common law, grand juries, indictments, jury trials.

The gov. is self governed by rules, regulation, codes, statutes, and administrative courts (this is what most are referring to when they talk about maritime law.)

Statutes only apply to government

There are two worlds going on at the same time. The question then is what world were u in at the time of any compliant.

The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

If the constitution is the supreme law of the land and only applies to government, what makes u think that anything below that applies to anything but the government? There are no such things as constitutional rights, ur rights come from god so read your bible, the constitution merely recognizes what is already known to be true.

The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
RUTAN v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)

Public trustees (government employees) are not protected by the constitution which is why constitution arguments cannot be made in administrative courts.

The TPTB learned a long time ago that forcing people into slavery didn’t work well, so they made the people free(sovereign) and used the masses stupidly against them to get them to contract themselves back into slavery.

I’ll finish with what sovereign actually means.
-Blacks Law 2nd Edition
Sovereign- a chief ruler with supreme power, a king or other ruler with limited power

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts”
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
Chisholm v. Georgia - 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

Resources for further study:
-sedm.org
-1215.org
-teamlaw.org
-Rob Menard
-Dean Clifford (who is currently being held in jail as a political prisoner)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20179835


Nobody knows what they are talking about on this thread? Speak for yourself.

Dean Clifford is in jail and has been numerous times because he is still endorsing the private credit of international bankers. Same with Rob, teamlaw and 1215.

You endorse their debt system and do not play by their rules, you are sunk.

ONLY (and I do mean ONLY) the suitors who are redeeming lawful money are consistently winning against the IRS, local courts and more importantly, avoiding them all together.

If you are not demanding your redemption as spelled out in 12 USC 411 and try what others are doing, you will be in the same place as Dean Clifford, Ted Turner and all the rest of the "trust" "sovereign" gurus.

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Your either a complete morAn or a government troll. My post here is the only one worth reading. The lawfull money arguement has been destroyed in court many times. Federal Reserve Notes are 100% lawfull and legal. U keep on going about the public debt. ALL DEBTS ARE OWED TO THE CREDITORS. WHO THEN IS THE CREDITOR? I'LL GIVE U A HINT IT'S THE PEOPLE
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20179835


In my research of over 15 years - this is the conclusion I have drawn as well...

The deficits of all the industrialized countries, are in fact credit owed to it's citizens... lawful money, meaning money earned by labour, when spent into the economy produces a dividend, a reserve...

The Canadian "Bills of Exchange Act" clearly states - a crossed cheque is a dividend warrant...

The devil though is in the details - how exactly do we redeem our credit???
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 02:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
"Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?

It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.
"

Actually, none of that is relevant. We're not under
'maritime law' nor does any court recognize maritime law as the basis of all US laws. The font on a birth certificate is meaningless. Those are all just made up contrivances of 'sovereign citizens' citing themselves. None of them have any relevance to the actual law.

Whether or not a birth is witness in a 'family record' like a bible is irrelevant. And the use of federal reserve notes by anyone is completely irrelevant to the application of birth certificates, as dollars don't form a 'contractual agreement'. That's just more pseudo-legal nonsense.

There's really not a single part of this that you got right.
 Quoting: J 34311994


12 USC 411:

"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."

cited directly from: [link to www.law.cornell.edu]

Tell us again how it is not law?

CAPITIS DIMINUTIO: In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality. Tills was a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows: Capitis diminutio maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights. Capitis diminutio media. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights. Capitis diminutio minima. Tile lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potcstas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 1G, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom. Law,

Cited directly from: [link to thelawdictionary.org]

There you go. Official cites from official sources, YOU are the one not citing a damn word you posted.

I guess you are some sort of god that can tell people what is law and what is not? Cite YOUR sources for you post, peon.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 02:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
One FIRST HAS TO recognize WHOM you are addressing in the court room/local,state, federal 'governments' are ALL CORPORATIONS, disguising themselves as governments AND, using the power/excuse of CONTRACT LAW in the courts THEY control, to control YOU !


No, the first thing that one has to realize...is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. That you're citing imaginary pseudo-legal mythology back and forth to each other as if by repeating it on message boards that the *actual* law changes.

Nope, it doesn't. There's no super secret status that makes you immune to the law. Calling yourself a 'sovereign citizen' doesn't make you immune to any taxation or any law. Its just noise coming out of your head hole that has no relevance whatsoever to your relationship with the law.

The 'paper person' nonsense is blithering idiocy. THere aren't 'paper people' and 'real people'. There are just citizens. You making up an imaginary 'secret status' doesn't mean that such a status actually exists. It would be like you arbitrarily declaring that since the law only applies to people wearing purple underwear that you're immune to the law if you go commando.

There is no such limitation to the law. Not with underwear, not with your similarly fallacious 'paper people'. You've imagined it all. And it has zero relevance with the actual law. Which would explain the essentially perfect record of failure of the 'sovereign citizens' in court.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 02:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Tell us again how it is not law?


Tell us again how Federal Reserve Notes create an 'implied contract' that grants the government jurisdiction over you? Because your source doesn't say that.

You do. You're not citing the law, you're citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. You simply 'typing' some gibberish about implied contracts doesn't actually change the law....surely you recognize this.

If you don't, the courts will rather rudely disabuse you of your misconception when you start babbling about how they have no jurisdiction because you don't use Federal Reserve Notes.

Federal Reserve Notes aren't the basis of jurisdiction nor does any court recognize them as such. Jurisdiction is established geographically. If you're in Maryland, the law of Maryland apply to you. It doesn't matter if you have pesos, yen or dollars in your pocket, if you run a red light they're pulling you over. And you can call yourself Frank, Optimus Prime or a 'Sovereign Citizen'.

You still get the ticket. Get used to the idea.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
...


Since none of u seem to know what the h-ll u are talking about ill chime in.
First the Constitution is not a contract it is a trust arrangement written by “We the People” making the government trustees. (Read the Preamble)

As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]”
63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247


Second most do not realize that is basic understanding in law that the people are self governing just like the US GOV. ( a federal corporation) is self governing
28 USC § 3002 - DEFINITIONS
(15)“United States” means—
(A)a Federal corporation;
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

The people are self governing by the common law, grand juries, indictments, jury trials.

The gov. is self governed by rules, regulation, codes, statutes, and administrative courts (this is what most are referring to when they talk about maritime law.)

Statutes only apply to government

There are two worlds going on at the same time. The question then is what world were u in at the time of any compliant.

The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

If the constitution is the supreme law of the land and only applies to government, what makes u think that anything below that applies to anything but the government? There are no such things as constitutional rights, ur rights come from god so read your bible, the constitution merely recognizes what is already known to be true.

The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
RUTAN v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)

Public trustees (government employees) are not protected by the constitution which is why constitution arguments cannot be made in administrative courts.

The TPTB learned a long time ago that forcing people into slavery didn’t work well, so they made the people free(sovereign) and used the masses stupidly against them to get them to contract themselves back into slavery.

I’ll finish with what sovereign actually means.
-Blacks Law 2nd Edition
Sovereign- a chief ruler with supreme power, a king or other ruler with limited power

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts”
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
Chisholm v. Georgia - 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

Resources for further study:
-sedm.org
-1215.org
-teamlaw.org
-Rob Menard
-Dean Clifford (who is currently being held in jail as a political prisoner)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20179835


Nobody knows what they are talking about on this thread? Speak for yourself.

Dean Clifford is in jail and has been numerous times because he is still endorsing the private credit of international bankers. Same with Rob, teamlaw and 1215.

You endorse their debt system and do not play by their rules, you are sunk.

ONLY (and I do mean ONLY) the suitors who are redeeming lawful money are consistently winning against the IRS, local courts and more importantly, avoiding them all together.

If you are not demanding your redemption as spelled out in 12 USC 411 and try what others are doing, you will be in the same place as Dean Clifford, Ted Turner and all the rest of the "trust" "sovereign" gurus.

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Your either a complete morAn or a government troll. My post here is the only one worth reading. The lawfull money arguement has been destroyed in court many times. Federal Reserve Notes are 100% lawfull and legal. U keep on going about the public debt. ALL DEBTS ARE OWED TO THE CREDITORS. WHO THEN IS THE CREDITOR? I'LL GIVE U A HINT IT'S THE PEOPLE
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20179835


In my research of over 15 years - this is the conclusion I have drawn as well...

The deficits of all the industrialized countries, are in fact credit owed to it's citizens... lawful money, meaning money earned by labour, when spent into the economy produces a dividend, a reserve...

The Canadian "Bills of Exchange Act" clearly states - a crossed cheque is a dividend warrant...

The devil though is in the details - how exactly do we redeem our credit???
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17551129


The first step is to record your demand for said redemption.

NOTICE is ALWAYS the first step. Once your notice and demand is recorded, you keep demanding it.

This is the ONLY way for anyone in a "debtor" nation to become a creditor. This is the major flaw in Clifford and many other BS sovereign citizen claims. Pledging labor does not make you (legally) a creditor, it makes you a peon or share cropper.

When I demand my "pay check" for anything, labor, ideas, et al be redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC 411, I am telling the government "YOU owe me this amount of lawful money" and I want it, its now a matter of public record.

They do not give it to me, they give me US Notes (you see them as Federal Reserve Notes) that are worthless, the government still owes me my money, therefore, I am, in legal and lawful terms, its CREDITOR.

The stupid idea that I can go into a bankruptcy court and claim "creditor" or "beneficiary" status to a trust that I have never accessed via my demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 AND a reservation of rights on every contractual agreement between my person and the Government is not a legally viable stand.

That is why the Gurus end up in jail all the time, they are standing on legal ground they have not accessed by obeying the law of the land.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17551129
Canada
02/13/2013 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
One FIRST HAS TO recognize WHOM you are addressing in the court room/local,state, federal 'governments' are ALL CORPORATIONS, disguising themselves as governments AND, using the power/excuse of CONTRACT LAW in the courts THEY control, to control YOU !

First they must dehumanize you to a 'non-entity, fictional person', etc. to put you on their CORPORATE LEVEL by sending you an ALL CAPITAL summons, letter and/or reading your name in court and asking IF that person is here. If you answer up, the word person in legalize MEANS you have reduced yourself to their level OF fictions person, NON entity ! Now your playing THEIR GAME, and they can treat you as such, by their CORPORATE law system.

There are many ways around this AND you can have any charge except assault or murder DROPPED, by simply confirming that minutes are being taken, and then saying, " I am a beneficiary of the Trust "as explained by a judge of 13 years on the bench who researched it and posted same on the net under the title of.....
" The Matrix and the U.S. Constitution ". Read it and GET an EDUCATION !

Eagle
 Quoting: Eagle # 1 7633733


Here is a true story;

I had criminal charges laid against me, and a summons was issued for me to appear in court...

When the officer from court services came to deliver the summons, I met her in the driveway...

I signed both copies of the summons, and gave one back to her... She was confused, called a superior, and left...

I also went in to court on the day the summons indicated... Got the crown attorney's attention before court started, and put a copy of my summons in front of her, and walked out...

This was 9 years ago - not heard a word since... been stopped a few times, and given traffic violation tickets, been across boder, got a passport... Nothing, nada has popped up on the radar screen...

All court issues are financial - a public debt has been drawn up, and it has to be settled... This is in reality, the only issue... Doing it immediately on the summons is valid, because it is your credit, and you are endorsing it back to them for settlement...

However, if you run it through the courts, then you have dirivatives, making it impossible to settle any other way then time, or time and capital...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 03:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Tell us again how it is not law?


Tell us again how Federal Reserve Notes create an 'implied contract' that grants the government jurisdiction over you? Because your source doesn't say that.

You do. You're not citing the law, you're citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. You simply 'typing' some gibberish about implied contracts doesn't actually change the law....surely you recognize this.

If you don't, the courts will rather rudely disabuse you of your misconception when you start babbling about how they have no jurisdiction because you don't use Federal Reserve Notes.

Federal Reserve Notes aren't the basis of jurisdiction nor does any court recognize them as such. Jurisdiction is established geographically. If you're in Maryland, the law of Maryland apply to you. It doesn't matter if you have pesos, yen or dollars in your pocket, if you run a red light they're pulling you over. And you can call yourself Frank, Optimus Prime or a 'Sovereign Citizen'.

You still get the ticket. Get used to the idea.
 Quoting: J 34311994


United State Code Title 12 is the regulation. The contract is between Congress (the US) and the Federal Reserve Bank. I cited that source earlier, again, your opinion and ignorance, not mine. Are you seriously implying in your posts there is no contract between the US and the Federal Reserve?

Is your point that US citizens cannot participate in that contract via endorsement? Cite YOUR proof.

It is clear there is a contract or Ben would not be in front of Congressional hearings every few months. The FEDERAL reserve is a private BANK, it cannot do business with anyone without a contract.

I could not care less if you accept the facts or not, they are the facts.

The rest of your post is nothing but personal attacks trying to get me to react. No need, your opinion means as much to me as the piss I just left in the toilet.

Provide your proof there is no contract with the Fed and 12 USC 411 is not the current law.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33667698
United States
02/13/2013 03:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope.

....

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

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31735180


Well now, Canadian AC, that's quite the "Big Red Pill" you've handed us there. A bit tough going down, I must say. But not completely unexpected - just never knew the half of it.

Although I was raised not to trust the politicians, the lawyers and the priests, other than than being told that "they are liars, thieves and use people in very nasty ways", I was never explicitly told all the whys & wherefores. Thanks for laying it out there in no uncertain terms.

So while freedom may very well originate in the mind, our bodies require a physical abode in which to dwell. And I for one, prefer that abode not to be a locked prison cell. Surely there are a few places on land left on this Earth that are not under the control of the Catholic Pope and the English Monarchy. I suffer terribly from sea-sickness and would therefore make a horrible pirate of the high seas.

I'm assuming Iran, North Korea & Cuba are on that list, but are there any other places? Despite not being under the thumb of the Pope & the Queen, neither Iran nor North Korea are in any way preferable to living in the United States of Slavery, especially for women. Cuba *might* be, but that's a tough call. Only the super-rich could afford to build their own private Idaho in Antarctica, so that leaves the rest of us poor slaves still looking for a refuge. Are there any?

News