Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,238 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,263,091
Pageviews Today: 1,810,152Threads Today: 366Posts Today: 9,545
05:25 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 04:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Yes, actually it does create an obligation, now go pay your income tax and STFU already, slave.

No, it doesn't. Using federal reserve notes or not, the law is still the same. The jurisdiction is still the same.

The 'sovereign citizens' just keep making up these imaginary 'limitations' of government jurisdiction that don't actually exist. Jurisdiction isn't based on whether or not you use FRN's or if your birth was recorded in a bible or what font type is used on your birth certificate.

But on where you are geographically.

There's no secret status or secret hand shake that makes you immune from the law.

Get used to the idea.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Are the FRNS in your pocket YOUR Property?

No, they are NOT, your seal nor your signature is on them.

Deface them and you are breaking the law, copy them and you are breaking the law. They are the property of the Federal Reserve BANK, states it right on them.

If they are not your, you do not and cannot tell me what the rules are for their use. Property rights. You use them you are doing so by contractual permission GRANTED in 1933 by CONGRESS. And YOU submit yourself to their OWNER rules, since the Federal Reserve owns them

Because you are too stupid to read the laws and cites I quoted FROM BOTH OFFICIAL and credible sources, that is YOUR issue, not mine.

I cited official sources for the law, the US Treasury and investopedia, as credible and or official sources.

Your premiss that I cited "myself" is proven wrong and anyone reading these posts can see that.

You use private property of another, you are OBLIGATED to do certain things and PROHIBITED from doing other things with that property, that is the law and has been since laws were written down more than 6000 years ago.

You are a liar and or a shill, here to do nothing but spread misinformation. You have provided ZERO cites and then claimed I am the one citing myself!!

You are not even good at doing what you are here to do.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The problem with the whole 'sovereign' argument is the fact that private individuals can't own property, as all property is owned by the State.


No it isn't. The problem with the sovereign argument is that its imaginary nonsense. We're not under 'maritime law', the basis of jurisdiction isn't 'contracts', and the numerous fallacious 'restrictions' that the sovereign citizens movement imagine don't actually exist.

It doesn't matter if you use Federal Reserve Note or not. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. It doesn't matter what font was used on your birth certificate. As the law isn't limited by any of these things. You can call yourself Optimus Prime, have nothing but yen in your pocket and have a birth certificate written in wingdings.....you still have to pay your taxes and abide traffic laws.

Jurisdiction is established geographically. Not by all these silly contrivances that 'sovereign citizens' have imagined up for themselves.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Because you are too stupid to read the laws and cites I quoted FROM BOTH OFFICIAL and credible sources, that is YOUR issue, not mine.

Investopedia isn't a legal source. And Title 12 didn't say a *thing* about implied contracts that obligate people if they use federal reserve notes. Or the use of these notes establishing jurisdiction. Nor does it indicate that FRNs aren't 'lawful money'.

That's you.....citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. Every time some poor, hapless fool tries to use your 'lawful money' argument in court or your 'implied contract through the use of FRN' argument....they lose. Because the law simply doesn't say what you claim it does. Title 12 for example makes *no mention* of your useless nonsense.

Show us the law indicating:

1) That FRN's aren't 'lawful money'.
2) That the use of federal reserve notes create an implied contract between people and the federal reserve...or people and the federal government.

You can't....because the law doesn't say this. You do. And you're nobody. You arbitrarily making up a non-existent pseudo-legal principle doesn't mean a thing.

That's what you poor 'sovereign citizen' folks really need to get through your heads: you citing yourself as the law has no legal relevance. It doesn't change anything.

And whether or not you use FRN's or you don't.....all the same laws still apply to you. This mythic 'limit' to government jurisdiction is just fantasy. It doesn't exist.
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/13/2013 04:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The problem with the whole 'sovereign' argument is the fact that private individuals can't own property, as all property is owned by the State.


No it isn't. The problem with the sovereign argument is that its imaginary nonsense. We're not under 'maritime law', the basis of jurisdiction isn't 'contracts', and the numerous fallacious 'restrictions' that the sovereign citizens movement imagine don't actually exist.

It doesn't matter if you use Federal Reserve Note or not. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. It doesn't matter what font was used on your birth certificate. As the law isn't limited by any of these things. You can call yourself Optimus Prime, have nothing but yen in your pocket and have a birth certificate written in wingdings.....you still have to pay your taxes and abide traffic laws.

Jurisdiction is established geographically. Not by all these silly contrivances that 'sovereign citizens' have imagined up for themselves.
 Quoting: J 34311994


True, those are effects of the insanity of Statism.

Historically the idea of 'sovereignty' is always linked to land ownership. Without land ownership, then laws are pointless. The individuals of this country have been turned into sharecroppers for the REAL sovereigns; the people who own and control the State, the Police, and the Printing Press.

Law is just an opinion backed up by force.
"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: 7633733
United States
02/13/2013 04:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J ..... Best advice I ever heard in my 84+ years is ....... If you find yourself in a hole and can't get out, STOP DIGGING !

You just keep making that 'hole' deeper, J !
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32275308
United States
02/13/2013 04:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The problem with the whole 'sovereign' argument is the fact that private individuals can't own property, as all property is owned by the State.

Without true ownership of land, and the right to self defense against the State, there is no individual 'sovereignty'.

It's a false hope built on a false premise.
 Quoting: Shingen


Where does the authority from your claim come from? What is the existing contract that states your claim?


Wikipidia-
"Most property ownership in the common law world is fee simple. Land is "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In the United States, land is subject to eminent domain by federal, state and local government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada, and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare. The constitution of the state of Minnesota states, "All lands within the state are allodial and feudal tenures of every description with all their incidents are prohibited." Some Commonwealth realms (particularly Australia) recognize native title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant. Some land in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, known as udal land, is held in a manner akin to allodial land in that these titles are not subject to the ultimate ownership of the Crown.[citation needed]"

Your states constitution and contractual arraignment with the "crown" and fed inc. will determine how difficult it is to have allodial land in your state. Get enough people with understanding of the law, not lawyers (remember BAR lawyers, and others of the such, work for the "system") and in an administrative capacity, change the laws/rules/statues/constitution.


All dejure law, which is most significant, comes FROM THE PEOPLE. Defacto law/jurisdiction comes from corporations.

CUT THE CONTRACTS AND INSTALL A LOCAL DEJURE GOVERNMENT

[link to republicfortheunitedstates.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 04:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Because you are too stupid to read the laws and cites I quoted FROM BOTH OFFICIAL and credible sources, that is YOUR issue, not mine.

Investopedia isn't a legal source. And Title 12 didn't say a *thing* about implied contracts that obligate people if they use federal reserve notes. Or the use of these notes establishing jurisdiction. Nor does it indicate that FRNs aren't 'lawful money'.

That's you.....citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. Every time some poor, hapless fool tries to use your 'lawful money' argument in court or your 'implied contract through the use of FRN' argument....they lose. Because the law simply doesn't say what you claim it does. Title 12 for example makes *no mention* of your useless nonsense.

Show us the law indicating:

1) That FRN's aren't 'lawful money'.
2) That the use of federal reserve notes create an implied contract between people and the federal reserve...or people and the federal government.

You can't....because the law doesn't say this. You do. And you're nobody. You arbitrarily making up a non-existent pseudo-legal principle doesn't mean a thing.

That's what you poor 'sovereign citizen' folks really need to get through your heads: you citing yourself as the law has no legal relevance. It doesn't change anything.

And whether or not you use FRN's or you don't.....all the same laws still apply to you. This mythic 'limit' to government jurisdiction is just fantasy. It doesn't exist.
 Quoting: J 34311994


Ah, now I got you in your lies J.

12 USC 411

..."they shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand..."

Federal reserve Notes are NOT issued as lawful money of the LAW would not state they shall be "redeemed for lawful money."

How can you redeem something for what it already is, you cannot.

Proven you are a LIAR, I cited 12 USC 411 I also cited Rickman V Ware which is about US Notes being "lawful money" as issued and require no endorsement or further action to be lawful money.

Now, Liar, tell us another lie to get out of that one.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2029220
United States
02/13/2013 04:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
LOL as long as they live off the fat of MY land they can say the exact same taxes I do. Bunch of rednecks
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34340873
United States
02/13/2013 04:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
and Native American Indian Tribes lived on
the land of the Americas long before
Europe sent it's laws and documents
over here.

they were FREE men on the land
with no birth certificates and
no contracts for debt slavery
and no taxes.

disputes were settled by knife fights
or tribe wars.

gosh, I miss the old days when life was
simple just between you and your creator.

Europeans came along and fvcked it all up.

BUT ...

we can get back to it as a Sovereign
just like the Indians were.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32275308
United States
02/13/2013 04:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
[link to youtu.be]



[link to youtu.be]



RESTORE THE GOD DAMN REPUBLIC!!!



If you oppose this idea or the probability of restoring a true republic, for the people, then get the hell out of this thread and get the hell out of MY COUNTRY!
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
True, those are effects of the insanity of Statism.

Now we're approaching a more philosophical debate on the merits of mandatory laws vs. anarchy. And the founders picked a side on that one: they were men of law. So regardless of what you think on what they *should* have done, I'm discussing what they did do.

And we do have laws. We do have taxes. And both are mandatory. All of these imaginary 'loopholes' that sovereign citizen movement folks make up are fantasy nonsense that have no relevance to the actual law nor actually work.

The record of failure for those trying to use this pseudo-legal arguments in court is essentially perfect.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
Federal reserve Notes are NOT issued as lawful money of the LAW would not state they shall be "redeemed for lawful money."

And where is 'lawful money' defined in the law? Show us, don't tell us.

And while you're at it, show us *any* mention in the law of your implied contract with either the federal reserve or the federal government with the use of FRNs. Show us in the law where the use of FRN's has any relevance to the jurisdiction of the law.

Title 12 makes absolutely no mention of any of it.

That's just you...citing you. And you're nobody.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34329518
Germany
02/13/2013 04:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
and Native American Indian Tribes lived on
the land of the Americas long before
Europe sent it's laws and documents
over here.

they were FREE men on the land
with no birth certificates and
no contracts for debt slavery
and no taxes.

disputes were settled by knife fights
or tribe wars.

gosh, I miss the old days when life was
simple just between you and your creator.

Europeans came along and fvcked it all up.

BUT ...

we can get back to it as a Sovereign
just like the Indians were.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34340873


yeah, I miss those nightly mammoth hunts.
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/13/2013 04:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The problem with the whole 'sovereign' argument is the fact that private individuals can't own property, as all property is owned by the State.

Without true ownership of land, and the right to self defense against the State, there is no individual 'sovereignty'.

It's a false hope built on a false premise.
 Quoting: Shingen


Where does the authority from your claim come from? What is the existing contract that states your claim?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32275308


The 'authority' comes from the threat and use of force. If I own land in allodial, then you can't come onto my land and pass a law. You wouldn't have lawful jurisdiction over my property. Your land, you pass all the laws you want, and if I come onto your land, if I don't follow your laws, then you can initiate some type of force against me.

There was a reason for all the Imminent Domain and asset forfeiture cases over the last 30 years, and that is so the State could consolidate land ownership without too much cost involved. Now that the State effectively owns all of the land, they can pass whatever law they want, and if you don't cowtow, they initiate force against you.
"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: 32275308
United States
02/13/2013 04:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
True, those are effects of the insanity of Statism.

Now we're approaching a more philosophical debate on the merits of mandatory laws vs. anarchy. And the founders picked a side on that one: they were men of law. So regardless of what you think on what they *should* have done, I'm discussing what they did do.

And we do have laws. We do have taxes. And both are mandatory. All of these imaginary 'loopholes' that sovereign citizen movement folks make up are fantasy nonsense that have no relevance to the actual law nor actually work.

The record of failure for those trying to use this pseudo-legal arguments in court is essentially perfect.
 Quoting: J 34311994




[link to realitybloger.wordpress.com]


read!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 04:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
True, those are effects of the insanity of Statism.

Now we're approaching a more philosophical debate on the merits of mandatory laws vs. anarchy. And the founders picked a side on that one: they were men of law. So regardless of what you think on what they *should* have done, I'm discussing what they did do.

And we do have laws. We do have taxes. And both are mandatory. All of these imaginary 'loopholes' that sovereign citizen movement folks make up are fantasy nonsense that have no relevance to the actual law nor actually work.

The record of failure for those trying to use this pseudo-legal arguments in court is essentially perfect.
 Quoting: J 34311994


J is ignoring the FACT there are many kinds of jurisdiction, there are laws of the land and laws of the SEA.

Congress has extended commercial/maritime jurisdiction further and further onto dry land via the commerce clause. High water mark cases where the Federal Government took more and more jurisdiction via commerce (contracts).

The final blow was in 1933 with the gold seizure from the people and the extension of Federal Reserve FIAT currency (floating currency) to everyone.

I really do not care if "J" or other people see the facts for what they are, history is what it is and Federal Reserve currency has done EXACTLY what the founding fathers wrote it would do, destroyed the rights of the people and made them indentured servants to the international banking cartels.

Demand your redemption from the scam and crime via 12-USC 411 or not, it makes little difference to me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
The problem with the whole 'sovereign' argument is the fact that private individuals can't own property, as all property is owned by the State.

Without true ownership of land, and the right to self defense against the State, there is no individual 'sovereignty'.

It's a false hope built on a false premise.
 Quoting: Shingen


Where does the authority from your claim come from? What is the existing contract that states your claim?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32275308


The 'authority' comes from the threat and use of force. If I own land in allodial, then you can't come onto my land and pass a law. You wouldn't have lawful jurisdiction over my property. Your land, you pass all the laws you want, and if I come onto your land, if I don't follow your laws, then you can initiate some type of force against me.

There was a reason for all the Imminent Domain and asset forfeiture cases over the last 30 years, and that is so the State could consolidate land ownership without too much cost involved. Now that the State effectively owns all of the land, they can pass whatever law they want, and if you don't cowtow, they initiate force against you.
 Quoting: Shingen


I know several people who have allodial title to their property, it was granted to them by congress before the State was a State where they live.

The sheriff of the county cannot even come on their land without being summoned by one of the family. Nor can game wardens or tax collectors.

However, they still have to register their vehicles, get drivers licenses and all that.

There must be another nexus besides not having allodial title.

Always follow the money.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J ..... Best advice I ever heard in my 84+ years is ....... If you find yourself in a hole and can't get out, STOP DIGGING !

You just keep making that 'hole' deeper, J !



While I appreciate the sentiment of your post, its the self proclaimed 'sovereign citizens' that need to wake up. That you agree with each other about whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you want to make up......doesn't actually have the slightest relevance to the world outside this message board. As the law isn't predicated on your imagination.

But the *actual* law, the *actual* court cases. Let me give you an example. Many here have argued that the font size on your birth certificate means that we're under maritime law.

The law doesn't say this. And the courts have rejected that nonsense every single time its been presented.

THat you here keep telling each other that the font size it relevant doesn't make it so. Your agreement with each other doesn't change the essentially perfect record of failure of your arguments in the real world.

So perhaps its yourself you need to dig out. As many of you have your head in the sand, repeating nonsense to yourself over and over as if by recitation....reality will change to match.

Nope. It won't. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And so many of you here have your eyes screwed shut.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34311575
United Kingdom
02/13/2013 04:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
here's a vid that may help with your understanding.
It's a bit slow but hey, that's law for you.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34249190


He knows how not to contract with them, for that, its a very educational video.

However, without lawful money demand, they will get him eventually, unless he does not every use money!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Here's another video with the same guy using successfully claiming Jurisdiction over the Court and dismissing the case under Common Law. Not the best recording but there's a narrative to explain what's going on. It gives a lot more clarity to the term LEGAL FICTION



Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/13/2013 04:51 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
True, those are effects of the insanity of Statism.

Now we're approaching a more philosophical debate on the merits of mandatory laws vs. anarchy. And the founders picked a side on that one: they were men of law. So regardless of what you think on what they *should* have done, I'm discussing what they did do.
 Quoting: J 34311994


I don't hold any religious reverence for the so-called 'founders'...and if they were Men of Law, then they were men of THIER law, as all men are.

Law is an opinion backed up by violence. There is no inherent morality or benefit to law, except for those people writing and enforcing said law. If you follow the money, you'll see that the people benefiting the most from 'law' are the lawmakers, and the law enforcers.

Last Edited by Shingen on 02/13/2013 04:54 PM
"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
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/13/2013 04:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
However, they still have to register their vehicles, get drivers licenses and all that.

There must be another nexus besides not having allodial title.

Always follow the money.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


That's because they have to leave their property.
"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
02/13/2013 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
here's a vid that may help with your understanding.
It's a bit slow but hey, that's law for you.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34249190


He knows how not to contract with them, for that, its a very educational video.

However, without lawful money demand, they will get him eventually, unless he does not every use money!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


Here's another video with the same guy using successfully claiming Jurisdiction over the Court and dismissing the case under Common Law. Not the best recording but there's a narrative to explain what's going on. It gives a lot more clarity to the term LEGAL FICTION




 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34311575


Keep trying, the guy who "arrested" the judge was later found guilty of several criminal charges.

You CAN NOT claim "common law" jurisdiction in a court that is private. They may have taken over the court, but they did not change what jurisdiction the court operates in, they just shut down business while they were there.

Next?
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J is ignoring the FACT there are many kinds of jurisdiction, there are laws of the land and laws of the SEA.


More accurately, I'm flatly rejecting the nonsense that we're all under 'maritime law' or that maritime law is the basis of jurisdiction of the law.

Jurisdiction is established geographically. If you're in say, Iowa, you're subject to the laws of Iowa. Your 'maritime law' contrivance is not only legally baseless, its completely unnecessarily. As there's no need to put the entire country under 'maritime' jurisdiction. State and Federal geographic jurisdictions work just fine.

Again, its yet another example of these imaginary 'limits' that your ilk make up, citing yourselves, that you believe grants you some secret status or loophole from the law.

Nope. There is no such limitation, there is no such status, there is no such loophole. As the essentially perfect record of failure in the courts demonstrates again and again.

That you furiously agree with each other that such loopholes *do* exist in this amusing little conspiracy circle-jerk....doesn't change the fact that outside this board, your claims have no legal relevance. The law simply doesn't say what you think it does. And the limits you've imagined for the law don't actually exist.

As you alone are not a legal authority. Making your opinion on what the law 'oughta' mean essentially meaningless. Its what the law says that matters, what the courts recognize that matters. Not you, citing yourselves.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30804735
United States
02/13/2013 04:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
imagine the government is a man with a gun.

imagine a sovereign citizen is someone minding his own business

imagine the man with the gun points the gun at the man minding his own business and says "work for me slave, or die"

The man minding his own business says "no"

the man with the gun shoots him.

That about sums up the whole argument. When the man minding his own business has his own gun, the would be slave master gets nervous, and gathers more slave masters with guns.

any questions?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17918257
Australia
02/13/2013 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
You guys...getting all wordy with each other, confusing the matter. It comes down to one simple statement.

Do you choose to obey God's laws or Man's legislation?

You decide. If you choose to believe that other humans are somehow more deserving or privileged than you--I hope it works out. Good luck.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31297288
United States
02/13/2013 04:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
However, they still have to register their vehicles, get drivers licenses and all that.

There must be another nexus besides not having allodial title.

Always follow the money.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288


That's because they have to leave their property.
 Quoting: Shingen


Or is it because they use fiat money to "pay" for those things?

Look at when the last land patients were granted, then look at when FIAT Federal Reserve "money" was widely used.

You cannot claim the rights of being "on the land" when you are using floating fiat currency.

It is ALWAYS about the money.
J
User ID: 34311994
United States
02/13/2013 05:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
I don't hold any religious reverence for the so-called 'founders'...and if they were Men of Law, then they were men of THIER law, as all men are.


Who said anything about 'religion'. You're beating a strawman that has nothing to do with my argument.

We have a system of laws. The arguments being made here are legal ones (well, pseudo-legal....as most of these folks don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about). Which means that were operating *within* our system of laws.

And the arbitrary and imaginary 'limits' that these folks make up (the font on your birth certificate, whether or not you use Federal Reserve Notes, if you call yourself 'sovereign') are meaningless, as they don't exist. Jurisdiction isn't established by font size or by what money you use, or by what you call yourself.

Its established geographically. If you're in Chicago, you're subject to the laws of Chicago. Done.

There's no super secret status that magically makes one immune to the law. No 'special syntax' or font size that makes one immune to the law. That the 'sovereign citizen' movement has made up pseudo-legal gibberish that they believe is essentially irrelevant. As their bound by what the law actually says. Not what they imagine it 'oughta' say.

And that's the part that the sovereign citizens just don't get. Until they get to court, that is. Then they figure out just how irrelevant their imaginary 'limits' actually are.
Shingen

User ID: 33279727
United States
02/13/2013 05:01 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J is ignoring the FACT there are many kinds of jurisdiction, there are laws of the land and laws of the SEA.

Jurisdiction is established geographically.
 Quoting: J 34311994


It has more to do with control of land. Who has jurisdiction is usually decided by who controls the land.
"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
02/13/2013 05:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
J is ignoring the FACT there are many kinds of jurisdiction, there are laws of the land and laws of the SEA.


More accurately, I'm flatly rejecting the nonsense that we're all under 'maritime law' or that maritime law is the basis of jurisdiction of the law.

Jurisdiction is established geographically. If you're in say, Iowa, you're subject to the laws of Iowa. Your 'maritime law' contrivance is not only legally baseless, its completely unnecessarily. As there's no need to put the entire country under 'maritime' jurisdiction. State and Federal geographic jurisdictions work just fine.

Again, its yet another example of these imaginary 'limits' that your ilk make up, citing yourselves, that you believe grants you some secret status or loophole from the law.

Nope. There is no such limitation, there is no such status, there is no such loophole. As the essentially perfect record of failure in the courts demonstrates again and again.

That you furiously agree with each other that such loopholes *do* exist in this amusing little conspiracy circle-jerk....doesn't change the fact that outside this board, your claims have no legal relevance. The law simply doesn't say what you think it does. And the limits you've imagined for the law don't actually exist.

As you alone are not a legal authority. Making your opinion on what the law 'oughta' mean essentially meaningless. Its what the law says that matters, what the courts recognize that matters. Not you, citing yourselves.
 Quoting: J 34311994


So now you are citing yourself about jurisdiction. Great way to do things.

Frankly, I do not give a crap what YOU think is law or is not law. I have proven jurisdictional questions for myself and once I learned about them, I walked out of their jurisdictions with a smile on my face and my record in place.

Just because YOU cannot do something or reject it can be done does not mean it cannot be done and has not been done.

I have done it and have not needed to do it again, but I know I can.

And, frankly, as a creation of my Creator, I am endowed with certain rights, I invite you to take me to court and prove otherwise.

File your claim and lets see what happens you old fool.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27473260
United States
02/13/2013 05:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?
there are no Sovereign citizens!! a Sovereign person, a Sovereign people, a Sovereign nation, yes. what would a Sovereign citizens, be a citizen of??????

an probably one of the quickest ways, to get on a watch list.
would not advise getting involved with this movement.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob