Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

oh and keep focusing on the poster making the weakest argument.

The British East India Trading Company...

I underlined what you posted where it says they can be redeemed in lawful money thanks for finding that that is awesome I never know they could be redeemed for lawful money you are awesome ... !

Laughing...with that 'lawful money' being Federal Reserve Notes. Not precious metals.

So after 3 hours and countless strawmen, are you *finally* ready to admit that FRNs are lawful money?

Or do I need to quote those court cases to you again to hammer home that you really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

You are owned.... and you will pay & obey like a good Sovereign.

Yeah, that 'FRN' nonsense was some pretty weak tea. I do feel kinda bad for picking on that poor bastard.

Have you got anything better for me to debunk for you? So far, I haven't seen a single piece of 'sovereign citizen' nonsense that held up to even passing scrutiny.

The greatest fallacy of statism is that morality should be legislated by immoral people, through the threat and use of force.

The greatest fallacy of anarchy is that it has anything better to offer. It really doesn't. It has no effective conflict management system, still has tons of violence and killing, and is utterly unsustainable, predictably devolving into factionism/tribalism.

No thanks.

And you never could explain to me who gets to decide what 'moral' violence was. You ran from my question like it were on fire.

Odd that. Predictably as the sun rising. But odd.

Its not a trick. I'm genuinely curious. In my system, I'd say 'the majority', limited by the recognized rights of the constitution.

Under your system, I don't have a clue.

nah you obviously only read what you want to and ignore the posts that stand up to your bullshit, anybody with half a brain can read and decide for themselves who is making a case. All you have is the old "noone else is doing it so you must be wrong" argument. You've ignored 12 USC 342 which pretty much shuts down all your bullshit posts regarding FRNs.

I didn't refuse to answer your question. You simply refuse to accept the answer.

The individual gets to decide, NOT THE STATE. What part didn't you get?


You claim moral superiority by the domination of an immoral system created by an immoral people. I claim the moral superiority of the individual.

It's not my fault you can not understand.

nah you obviously only read what you want to and ignore the posts that stand up to your bullshit, anybody with half a brain can read and decide for themselves who is making a case.

Translation: You've got jackshyte.

Thanks for clearing that up. If you ever find you have an argument you would like debunked with better evidence, better reasoning and better processes, I'll be around.

Until then.....have a great evening!

The individual gets to decide, NOT THE STATE. What part didn't you get?

So any individual can decide what 'moral' violence is? Can I assume they can use any basis they want, any justification they want?

For example, if in your anarchy community lets say a raging anti-semite (yeah, a stretch on this board, I know) decided that all Jews and Muslims had to die. He feels completely justified in his moral reasoning.

Per you, is any jew or muslim he managed to slaughter an act of 'moral violence'?

You've already essentially tossed your entire society to fend for themselves from murders, rapists, theives, muggers and burglars......as even if you find them, its 'not your responsibility to impose your morality' on them.

So...any crime, no matter how reprehensible, no consequence. Sounds lovely.

But now I want to see if you would go so far as to call that violence *moral*, if the murders, rapists, thieves, muggers, etc.....decided for themselves that it was.

So...yes? No? Only on days that end in 'y'? Explain it to me.

Wait, shillery cliton, I thought you claimed the courts already ruled on it, why the future tense in that last line?

And whose notes are in your pocket, lair? Are you authorized to carry those FRNs around?

12 USC 411 spells out only Federal Reserve Agents are to use them...what gives?

here let me keep throwing it in your face mr jack shyte.....lmao

Don't feel sorry for me, I am not your concern, or am I? You gonna get me for bein a sovrun? You gonna sick the IRS on me? Why the hell do you care how I live my life, did god give you some kind of power over others some gift of governance?

Tell me how it is YOU have more right to interpret laws that are clear and unyielding. Federal Reserve notes are redeemable, on demand in lawful money, either it is the law or its not, which is it lawsbian?

And if they are already lawful money AS issued why is there a redemption clause for them? You clearly think you know law better than Congress or the courts, so lets hear it.

Still dodging the easy questions from the "weakest poster" uh lawsbian?

It gets really tiring to see these same nudnicks time after time come into threads to derail them not really proving anyone wrong just parroting the same crap over and over and over til people get tired of the repetitive crap and let the thread die.

that is the point of these trolls isn't it.

For those that insist you can't be sovereign without your own form of money::: Do you think it is impossible for one SOVEREIGN country to use another SOVEREIGN countries money?

Point is, you need 3 things to be sovereign. You need "a" sovereign GOD, LAND and PEOPLE. I am all 3 of those things. I even have a border that is not imaginary. You can touch it, smell it, taste it, etc.

The BEASTs of the earth (ie:usA,Brussels,India) roam around with imaginary borders, PRETENDING to talk and act. BUT... If you listen really closely, you might hear it speaking THROUGH YOU, acting THROUGH YOU, killing THROUGH YOU.

So to refresh, LORD OF HOSTS makes HOSTS. The HOSTs make other lower entities (usually on paper) BEASTs to POSSESS, but for lack of knowledge and defense become POSSESSED.

Get right, be right.

Wait, shillery cliton, I thought you claimed the courts already ruled on it, why the future tense in that last line?

Laughing...not only have the courts ruled on them. I even quoted the names of the relevant cases and for Rickman, the relevant passage that establishes the court's recognition of FRN's as lawful money.

And apparently you ignored it all. Once again, for the dipshytes!

_______________________________________________________
Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

......Defendant claims error in the instruction that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. We have held that they are. The instruction was proper. Viewed as a whole the instructions were fair, adequate, clear and understandable. They permitted consideration of every defense which defendant offered and allowed acquittal if the jury believed the defendant. See United States v. Hudler, supra, 605 F.2d at 491 .

U.S. v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, C.A.Kan. 1980:
___________________________________________________


Dollars being legal tender and taxable under the law was affirmed in U.S. v. Wangrund, U.S. v. Schmitz, and Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company.

Undoubtedly you'll be back in another 20 minutes once again weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth about how I ever mentioned any of the cases.

Sigh....you can't fix stupid, I guess.

Is not a Judge an individual? Don't they use any basis they want? Any justification? What is your point?



I'd say he wouldn't live very long.



That's because you fundamentally believe that all people are evil. I know different. Most people are ethical and moral, and given an ability to defend themselves, the murderers, rapists and general parasites would be run out of town or executed though trial by their peers and not some fabricated legal system created by lawyers.


You really are an idiot, aren't you?


Your system doesn't have any better answers except to lock people in cages for the profit of the political classes, and at the expense of the middle classes.

You have no moral ground to stand on. That's why you spend your time attacking me. You and I both know your system is failing miserably.

Sorry to confront you with reality, but sometime you are going to have to pull your head out of your ass and look around you.

Now I am stupid, but here you are still trying to "fix it" who is the bigger fool?

You still have not answered the question from the stupid one, why not?

Who owns Federal Reserve Notes? Here is another one,

Under what Constitutional authority are they issued?

Who issues said notes?

Come on, lawsbian, teach the truth.

Again, just so everyone else is secure in their reading of your lies, not one case has ever been brought against anyone demanding, on the record, their redemption of Federal Reserve notes for "lawful money" per 12 USC 411.

Now put on your depends, take your laxative and go to sleep in your own excrement old man just like every night.

I wonder what J is going to do when his beloved over lords seize his retirement accounts to pay for their debts?

What is he going to do when his house built on "lawful" Federal Reserve debt crashes and the real owner of all those electronic dollars takes them away back and collects all the collateral he thinks he "bought and paid for" with the legal tender lawful money redeemable in lawful money on demand legal tender currency Federal Reserve notes.

Personally, I will not laugh, but it will happen. Maybe the old bass turd will die before it happens and he will go to the grave thinking how special he is.

Maybe he will not be around to see American children starving to death in the streets or working in Chinese run factories to work of the debt he and his generation ran up living off the fiat money system that is the Federal Reserve singing songs of praise to the debt system and fractional reserve banking.

I hope he lives to see it all because it will happen.

HAHAHA!!!!

I was waiting for someone to say it!!!
I practically stopped reading his shit after p3

LMAOOOO

Is not a Judge an individual? Don't they use any basis they want? Any justification? What is your point?

My point is that by the standards you’re offering…..any kind of violence is ‘moral’ if the person doing it feels morally justified. Someone could decided that its moral to flay a 6 year old with a butter knife before raping and slitting her throat.

And not only is it nobody’s job to impose their morality on him. His actions would be *moral* in your system. Because he decides it is.

Any action is no only permissible, its moral if you believe it is.

That's because you fundamentally believe that all people are evil.


Can you quote me saying that? Or is that you quote yourself as me? If so….that’s a little odd.

Most people are ethical and moral, and given an ability to defend themselves, the murderers, rapists and general parasites would be run out of town or executed though trial by their peers and not some fabricated legal system created by lawyers.

Lets say that it’s a 90-10 split. 90% of the people are awesome. 10 are awful. That;s still a lot of murders, thieves, rapists, child molesters, cheats and the like. And how would they be ‘run out of town’? What if they said ‘no’? Is your town gonna get violent? What if they come back? Harsh language? What if they keep commiting crimes? Do they get a sound talking to? Even conceptually, how could you possibly justify running someone out of town?

Remember, its not your job to impose your morality on any of them. As your morality is no more better than theirs…with each person being their own judging using whatever justification or standard they wish. You’ve given us YOUR definitions of permissible violence. But what if someone disagrees? What if they think that its okay to kill if you want to take someone’s things? Or its okay to hurt people that have wronged him?

Per your system, his view is just as moral and valid as yours.. Everyone’s violence, no matter how gruesome or selfishly motivated, is moral violence.

Sounds lovely.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?


I’m sorry. What part of ‘its not my job to impose my morality’ did I misunderstand? You’ve told me straight up that its not your job to make people follow your laws. So what consequence would there be for any crime? Even ‘crime’ becomes a meaningless term, as anything I do is moral if I but believe it is.

I am an ‘judge’, am I not? I can use whatever basis or justification for *any* action I wish to take. Who are you to say that molesting kids is wrong…or murder or theft or rape is wrong? After all, every individual’s feelings about their actions justifies then as valid and moral.

Better keep a close on your kids under your ‘anarchy’. As its not your business to impose your morality on the ‘moral’ child molester down the street.


Your system doesn't have any better answers except to lock people in cages for the profit of the political classes, and at the expense of the middle classes.


Nonsense. If we find a criminal, we can *definitely* impose our morality on him. You want to kill people, we’ll lock you away or kill you right back. You want to rape, we’ll lock you away. We have no problem setting objective standards of permissible behavior and enforcing them.

In your system….any violence is moral if the person inflicting the violence ‘feels’ it is. And no matter how horrible the crime its not your job to impose your morality. So how do you impose social standards?

You don’t. Man wants to beat his wife…too bad so sad. If he wants to molest his children, its not your business. Hell, if he wants to start killing people, as long as its no one you know…..its not your business to impose your morality.

Can you see why most folks probably wouldn’t want to live like that?

I was waiting for someone to say it!!!
I practically stopped reading his shit after p3

Oh, clearly. That's why were on page 16. Because no one wants to read or respond to my posts.

You are like trying to talk to a toddler. It's almost comical.

I grow weary of trying to explain the obvious. Have a nice night. Thanks for playing.

Last Edited by Shingen on 02/14/2013 12:05 AM

Again, just so everyone else is secure in their reading of your lies, not one case has ever been brought against anyone demanding, on the record, their redemption of Federal Reserve notes for "lawful money" per 12 USC 411.

So I 'lied' by quoting the courts saying this about FRN:

_________________________________________________
Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

......Defendant claims error in the instruction that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. We have held that they are. The instruction was proper. Viewed as a whole the instructions were fair, adequate, clear and understandable. They permitted consideration of every defense which defendant offered and allowed acquittal if the jury believed the defendant. See United States v. Hudler, supra, 605 F.2d at 491 .

U.S. v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, C.A.Kan. 1980:
___________________________________________________

Yeah, I don't think you get what a 'lie' is. Its not anything you disagree with. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Do you acknowledge that the FRN is lawful money? Do you acknowledge that Milan was not entitled to redeem FRNs for precious metals? Do you acknowledge that FRNs, as lawful money, can be redeemed for another FRN?

If not, why not? Are the courts wrong?

You are like trying to talk to a toddler. It's almost comical.

So nothing on the plethora of truck size holes in your vision of 'anarchy'? No method of conflict resolution. Any violence done by anyone 'moral' if they judge it to be so. And it not being your job to impose your morality on anyone....no matter what they do?

I didn't think so. I've had this conversation with anarchists before. This is where their claims always break down. Where their proposals are revealed to be a vile, viscous little community where you always have to watch your back....because anything anyone does to you is moral and justified.

No thank you.

>>Oh, clearly. That's why were on page 16. Because no one wants to read or respond to my posts.<<

only the ones who like to argue on the internet..

from my perspective, you seem to be trying too hard to make your point aswell. makes me wonder why that is? its not too important to me but it should be to you and so I mention it.

why does it bother you?