Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

no it's not.



Yes, it is. You say that no requirement exists. The law articulates such a requirement. And the courts have consistently upheld that the law articulates a requirement to pay.

That you believe otherwise is irrelevant. As you don't define the law or its requirements.



I asked for the requirement


And I gave it to you. That you reject the requirement is irrelevant. The law clearly states that you're required to submit returns and pay your taxes.

And every court to hear the 'show me the requirement' argument has lost, without exception.

Your legal reasoning simply doesn't work. It never has.

Get used to the idea. Just because you deny that the statute applies to you doesn't mean that you're immune from taxation. As your obligation to pay doesn't require your agreement with the law.

Actually your system is a thief or serial killers wet dream. All they have to do is get elected to office and they can pretty much do whatever they want and they will be protected by the violence of the State. Which is how your system operates now.

Why should you force your moral code on me? Who gave you that authority? Supposedly, according to the 'founder's documents' that authority comes from the governed, yet there is no way to refuse consent in your system.

I think you see everything through a veil of compulsory compliance, but when key questions are asked about your system of government, you have no answer, and instead choose to attack mine.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. It is not my job to enforce a moral code, nor is it yours, because in order to enforce that moral code you must become immoral. Catch 22.

I don't claim to have all the answers to governing a society. If you claim to, then you are delusional at best and deluded at worst.

However I know for a fact that if I am not moral enough to govern myself, then you are not moral enough to govern me!

That is the bottom line.

Tell me again: who the hell are YOU do tell me what the law is? You have never answered the question:

ARE THE FRNS IN YOUR POCKET YOUR PROPERTY OR NOT?

Answer the question Quatlooser!

Quote me saying that that anyone demanding 'lawful money' in exchange for FRN's is commiting a crime.

Either you can or your can't. And clearly you can't.

Any other strawmen you'd like to knock the stuffing out of you?

Oh, and the ruling that you insist I lied about:

___________________________________________________

Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals. . . . " (Emphasis supplied.)
8The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411. Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless. Cf.31 U.S.C. § 392.

9While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.

______________________________________________________

Yes, the case was dismissed as frivilous. And no, he wasn't allowed to exchange his FRN for precious metals. You can always exchange a FRN for another FRN note. But nothing else.

Try again, this time actually reading for comprehension, shall we?

Tell me again: who the hell are YOU do tell me what the law is? You have never answered the question:

Not me. The courts. Every single time that your argument has *ever* been presented to the courts, its failed. Its record of failure is essentially perfect.

That *you* don't agree is meaningless. You're nobody. And your rejection of a statute requiring the filing of tax returns and the payment of taxes is meaningless. As agreement with you is not a legal requirement of government for collecting taxes.

So you vs the judicary has the same winner every time: not you.

While you may imagine that whatever interpretation you want to make up is legally authorative, its not. You don't decide when the law applies to you and when it doesn't. You don't decide what a statute 'oughta' mean.

The law and the courts do.

So whatelse have you got other than you, citing yourself?

12 usc does not state "redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes" it states "redeemable in lawful money"

Lawful money is not only gold or silver coin, so stop trying to state that it is.

Lawful money is ALL coins and notes issued by the US treasury, end of discussion, the court agrees.

You are trying to misdirect this into a gold and silver redemption, common for the Quatlooser ilk.

In case you missed it, Are the FRNS in your pocket your property or not, J?

I was not a defendant or appellant in any of those cases, therefore, the Courts made no ruling for me, sorry, you are dead wrong.

As for the rest, I did not even read it.

Again, since you cannot seem to get this:

Are the Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket your property or not?

paid shill...

Actually your system is a thief or serial killers wet dream. All they have to do is get elected to office and they can pretty much do whatever they want and they will be protected by the violence of the State. Which is how your system operates now.


Nope. If we find a serial killer, we put him in jail or kill him. If you find a serial killer, well, its not your responsibility to impose your morality.

You do nothing. You have no method of conflict resolution, nor any way of enforcing your laws. If I wish to break them, there's nothing you can about it.

As its not your responsibility to impose your morality.

Thieves, rapists, grifters, cheats, murders and muggers would love your system. As they can do whatever they want with no consequence.

No thanks.


I said it before, and I'll say it again. It is not my job to enforce a moral code, nor is it yours, because in order to enforce that moral code you must become immoral. Catch 22.


Immoral according to who? You've already carved out 'exceptions' for your own violence. So clearly *somebody* gets to decide what is moral and immoral violence. Remember, you spoke of the 'intent' of violence defining its morality and ethics.

Um, who decides what is 'moral' violence? This is huge. And you won't touch it. Do you decide for us what 'moral' violence is? Do we each decide for ourselves? Is there any objective standards?

Again, there has NEVER, EVER been a case against anyone redeeming lawful money and then not paying income tax, nor has any case been brought against anyone for "tax evasion" by redeeming lawful money.

Therefore and ergo, since the courts have NOT ruled on this question, J and the other Quatloosers are giving their personal opinion that it is a "frivolous argument".

Yet at every turn J says that I have no right to determine what the law is, well, by default he does not either.

Since there is NO CASE, the question has not been answered by the courts, but any speculation by HIM or me how they might rule is a matter of personal opinion.

Check mate J. You have no more right to speak for the court nor the law than I do, by your own admissions.

J, you are being a disrespectful prick, answer the simple question I have asked many times.

Are the FRNS in your pocket your property or not?

paid shill...

Laughing!

Oh, dude....do you really think anyone would bother to *pay* to have that bullshyte argument debunked? It has *never* worked, ever.

Its record of failure is perfect. Ask Ed and Elaine Brown how well it worked. Ask Bill Benson. Ask Jack Ray Carr. Ask all the other poor, stupid bastards who tried to insist that THEY get to define what the law is supposed to mean instead of the courts.

It didn't work out well for them.

But *this* time it will be different, huh?

Laughing.....Good luck with that.

No. They belong to the Federal Reserve Bank. Just like your Social Security Card belongs to the Social Security Administration, your driver's license belongs to the state you live in and your bank account belongs to the bank!

In this system private ownership is abolished in favor of corporate/state ownership.

for information, courts rule on the question before the court, raised at that time and in that case.

The question of "does redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411 redeem one from the obligation to file or pay income tax?"

THAT QUESTION HAS NEVER BEEN BEFORE THE COURTS.

There is case law that direct tax on labor is unconstitutional. There are many other cases and questions, but that one has NEVER been at the BAR.

So no matter what the SHILL J states, he is giving his personal opinion on the question. He has not provided any reason for his opinion other than his personal belief.

12 USC 411 stands as law and it is not "redeemable in Federal Reserve notes" it is "redeemable in lawful money".

End of discussion until the Courts rule on this question.

J, you are being a disrespectful prick, answer the simple question I have asked many times.

I don't think you get the irony of that statement, do you?

As for the FRN, if you have some point to make about who owns it, make it.You clearly have something you want to say about the topic.

Say it.

Lets just hope it works out better for you than the other smoldering train wrecks of debunked conspiracies in this thread. Because it hasn't been pretty.

Oh, now the shill is claiming nobody has EVER won a case against income tax and the IRS!!!!!!

What a joke, I personally know people who have taken the IRS to the cleaners in court. The IRS does NOT win every case, they just do not advertise their losses like their "wins".

The simple facts are, they do not win all their cases, nor do they even file that many cases.

The IRS and the Government loses cases, and has their convictions over turned regularly. Pure disinformation and cover up from J.

Are you done yet, liar?

Answer the question Quatlooser!

does redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411 redeem one from the obligation to file or pay income tax?"


Does 'redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411' have anything to do with paying income taxes?

The court has never recognized any connection. If you believe they have, show us. The laws certainly don't make any.

And the courts have rejected as frivolous the request to 'redeem FRNs for precious metals'. FRNs are redeemable for another FRNs.

Hell, you can't even *define* lawful money in the law. Everytime I ask you to do so, you slink away and start tossing up brand new strawmen.

I'm still waiting. Try again.

Oh, now the shill is claiming nobody has EVER won a case against income tax and the IRS!!!!!!

Not on the basis that the law doesn't exist requiring them to pay taxes to the IRS The most effective strategy for tax protestors is:

I was too fycking stupid to understand the tax code, and while I acknowledge that I violated the law, I didn't mean to. There was no intent to commit any crime. I'm just an idiot'.


Bill Benson tried that one in one of his trials. It worked in his second trial. But not the first. But you'll notice when *he* went to trial, he didn't try to use his own argument that there is no legal requirement to pay taxes. He avoided them fastidiously, instead falling back on the 'I'm too stupid to form criminal intent' claim.

But he'll still sell you his 'freedom from taxes' kit from the online store. It will tell you all about a series of arguments that he wouldn't use in his own trial.

Which speaks volumes. You've been duped.

Are the FRNS in your pocket your property or not?

That is the question. The other tripe you are posting has been covered already, NO CASE has taken on the question of someone who redeemed lawful money being taxable, so stop acting like it has.

Answer the question of property, are they YOUR Federal Reserve Notes or NOT?

Unfortunately, this thread has deteriorated into a lot of mud slinging...

What I have learned - you simply have to do what you think is correct for the given situation... You learn by failures and mistakes...

I have had both...

The biggest lesson I have learned so far - stay away from any group thought processes on this matter, it always deteriorates...

The fact you refuse to answer a simple question speaks volumes, shill.

12 usc does not state "redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes" it states "redeemable in lawful money"


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

Remember, the courts rejected as frivilous the claim that anyone had the right to 'redeem' FRNs for precious metals. So that's out. And currently the only thing you can redeem a FRN for is another FRN.

It seems you're kinda stuck. You can't define the terms you're using. And the courts have shot down your claims of what 'lawful money' is.

What else have you got?

The fact you refuse to answer a simple question speaks volumes, shill.


Can I take it from the complete abandonment of the 'show me the law' argument that you're desperately trying to change the topic?

Lets just put that idiocy to bed, shall we. As it appears no one wants to polish that turd anymore.

What's your next hairbrained conspiracy that you'd like me to debunk?

There are people who post on this subject and derail it for one reason:

There is something in the movement those in power fear greatly.

No small group gets more attention from the Federal Government than "sovereigns" WHY?

If there is nothing to it, there is nothing to counter, but every single time I bring up 12 USC 411, the heat from people posting the EXACT same things that J is posting comes out with a near rage. WHY?

People do and say stupid things all the time, but NO single group gets more attention from hate groups like "southern poverty....." than sovereigns, there must a real threat to them they do not like.

J is just the latest in a long line of shills post day and night against redemption per 12-USC 411.

Personally, I think that the whole 'sovereign citizen' lie was created by the media/government in order to discredit anarchists and individuals who choose not to comply with the State.

"Sovereign citizen" is a contradiction in terms.

he biggest lesson I have learned so far - stay away from any group thought processes on this matter, it always deteriorates...


Here's another possible take away from this thread:

Ask 'according to who' when you hear these rather extraordinary claims about secret status', fonts on birth certificates, or 'implied contracts'. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If it doesn't lead you back to a legally authoritative source, then its just someone's opinion. And has no particular relevance in an actual court of law.

That's huge.

And actually check the sources. So many of the 'court quotes' I've found here are either 'creatively edited', or taken completely out of context.

Still not an answer. Whats the matter? You know the answer will sink your entire shill argument, that is the only reason an attorney will not answer a direct question, he knows it will sink his "case".

You are betrayed by your own lack of response, esquire.

pay attention to his play on words. he used exchange not redeem, this is the same type of crap the cockroaches in d.c. do. misdirect, obfuscate and tear down strawman arguments.

Here is another thing to take from this thread, J is an attorney and he knows there are no cases that directly answer the question "does redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411 free one from the obligation of income tax?"

That is why he trying the "this has gone on too long, lets stop."

He is cornered by one simple question: Who owns Federal Reserve Notes?

he refuses to answer because he knows what the answer is and it will destroy his stance on the subject.