Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

Legal tender is not the same thing as lawful money.

Nor is color of law the same as law of the land, nor is maritime commercial jurisdiction the same as land jurisdiction.

J is a full of shit and he knows it.

All powers vested in the Government collectively are held by each man and woman individually. The created cannot have more power than the creator.

Government were created by man, man was not created by Government.

Legal tender is not the same thing as lawful money.

The courts fail to recognize a distinction in terms of Federal Reserve Notes.

And for the record, J is doing nothing but farting in the wind.

The Government cannot control crime, drugs, money or anything, it plays the illusion that it is in control of everything when it is the people that control everything.

Like any parasite, it cannot produce enough energy to sustain itself. The idea that 300 or so people in the District of Columbia have the power or authority to control 300 million souls is lunacy.

All powers vested in the Government collectively are held by each man and woman individually. The created cannot have more power than the creator.

That's obvious nonsense.

Elect a president all by yourself.

Change the drinking age in your State all by yourself.

You can't do it. The people can. They have more authority than you do all by yourself.

And for the record, J is doing nothing but farting in the wind.

More accurately, I'm debunking the 'sovereign citizen' nonsense. No matter what you call yourself, you're still subject to the law. There's no secret status, special handshake, font on your birth certificate or syntax that gets you out of having to pay your taxes or abide the speed limit.

The fuck they don't and have since 1933. I supplied the US Treasury document that accounts for lawful money differently, as does the US Treasury site.

You are as loony as a shit house rat and you clearly have OCD because you have been posting on this thread for nearly 24 hours straight.

For hells sake STFU!

Federal reserve notes are not issued under ANY constitutional authority, they cannot be "lawful" accept by conditional acceptance of the individual. They are commercial legal tender, says so right on them, ya FUCK.

The law? What law? Define law and then prove to me I am subject to it, right here, right now, prove it by doing something that effects me right this second.

You can't because words written on paper are NOT magic and cannot produce any effect unless and until a man enforces them.

Color of law requires consent or has NO lawful authority.

What I call my self or anything is not your business, stuff you labels up your nose, dumb ass.

You can't because words written on paper are NOT magic and cannot produce any effect unless and until a man enforces them.

And we do enforce our laws. If you violate them and your caught, you'll be subject to the law.

Just ask the poor, stupid bastards that insisted in court they don't have to pay taxes. Well, after they get out of jail.


Color of law requires consent or has NO lawful authority.

Says who? Is that you citing you again? If so, that's meaningless.

If you want to make a legal argument quote the law and the courts. Not yourself. You're nobody. And you don't define any legal term, the extent of any law, or the jurisdiction of any law.

Just out of curiosity, were you the same hapless soul that tried to claim that the US didn't include any of the States? If no, never mind. If so.....I'm still waiting for something beyond you citing you.

12 USC 411

Federal reserve Notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.

Something that already is cannot be redeemed into what it was.

If FRNS were lawful money, they would be called lawful money, not LEGAL TENDER.

All legal tender is not Lawful money, but by contract agreement any "thing" can be considered lawful money.

The court did not agree with Rickmans claim that "because FRNS are not directly redeemable in gold or silver, they are not lawful money".

And they are right, that paper currency be directly redeemable in gold or silver coin does NOT make is lawful or not.

The issuing authority is what makes lawful money lawful AS issued, no contact agreement needed.

The Constitution set out the powers of congress and the other branches of Government and NO power is given to congress to allow paper money to be issued from the Federal Reserve as "lawful money".

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

"color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket."

Yes, they do. The courts recognize FRN's as lawful money. ANd legal tender. In fact they rejected a distinction. Shall I quote them again for you? I've already supplied the quote at least 3 times in this thread alone. BUt I'd be happy to educate you if you'd like.





Says you...citing you. And who cares what you think? You're not a legal authority. You don't define any legal term, define any constitutional authority, nor any jurisdiction.

The courts have recognized FRNs as lawful money and legal tender. And they trump you, citing yourself.

"color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket."

And who says that our laws are 'color of law'?

You citing yourself again? Remember, you define any portion of our law. You don't tell us what legal terms mean. You don't define any jurisdiction. You don't decide if you're exempt from a given law.

The law and the courts do.

You can't get around that.

All legal tender is not Lawful money, but by contract agreement any "thing" can be considered lawful money.

Says who? The courts don't recognize a distinction between legal tender and lawful money. They recognize the FRNs as both.

Who says that by only by contract agreement can any'thing' be considered lawful money?

You again?

Every time you cite yourself as a legal authority, you've already lost. As you're nobody. You citing you doesn't mean a thing.

If you want to make a legal argument, quote the law and the courts. Not yourself.

A Republic is not a Democracy.

Grey is not white.

Blue is not black.

FRNs are not lawful money of the land.

Maritime commercial courts are administrative in nature and are not Article III courts of the land.

Gold and Silver coin are the original "lawful money".

Federal Reserve Notes are issued under the "color of law" and not under any Constitutional authority.

Without acceptance and endorsement of the individual, they are not "lawful" money as issued.

Congress, the President and the Judicial do many things under color of law that is NOT enumerated in the Constitution.

Obama himself stated "The Constitution tells us what we CAN do, not what we CANNOT do."

His is the same reasoning as J's, because he said so.

A Republic is not a Democracy.


We're a democratic republic.



FRNs are not lawful money of the land.

So you say. THe courts say differently, recognizing FRNs as lawful money. The you disagree is irrelevant...as you don't define any legal term.


Maritime commercial courts are administrative in nature and are not Article III courts of the land.

And who says we have 'maritime commercial courts'?

You citing yourself again = meaningless.

Federal Reserve Notes are issued under the "color of law" and not under any Constitutional authority.

Says you, citing you. WHich means nothing. You arbitrarily declaring something 'color of law' doesn't make it so. As you don't define anything. Not any legal term, not any constitutional power, not any jurisdiction.

Nothing.

So other than you citing yourself....what else have you got?

Then I guess the IRS is in the business of sending full refund checks based on fantasies. I think I have figured out, this type of info must make you feel like an idiot because it leaves you out of the discussion. We get it you we are all idiots, anything else? Now run alonv and troll another thread.

Self important idiots who think they know it all always ruin threads. You havent debunked a single thing other than keep asking people to show you proof like you matter. You are actually in the wrong forum go to savings to suitors club and let thr redeemers with tons of experience and perfected legal doctrine have a good lol at your expense. They are much more patient with idiots than those of us who come here.

guys, I think I figured this out. "J" stands for J~w, that explains it all!

For all his BS here, it is clear the J~w has never read the united States Constitution:

"Article III


Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

What an idiot.

Shhh, do not disturb him, people with dementia can be dangerous if they wake up...

US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

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

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

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

Just for the record.

at last, spoken like a true communist and someone who has NO IDEA how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. You are a moron who refuses to look in the mirror, your arguments are empty and tired, you haven't debunked a single thing on this page yet keep patting yourself on the back (a clear sign of delusion) and ultimately to apply your very same logic to YOU. Who are you? to be taken seriously other than another bootlicker telling the other sheep that they are crazy for wanting to be free.

we established he is a complete idiot about 7 pages back but the idiot just won't shut up even though he's been proven wrong in many posts yet acts like he is the only one presenting any logic or reason. The problem is he is a sheep who takes pride in being one. Ive met his type before, I even had one tell me "no man is a sovereign", and he happened to be a communist little shitbag too. There is no mystery his beliefs and doctrines came straight out of the socialist slums of europe and totally anathema to America jurisprudence and legal precedent.

WRONG!!!!

we are a Constitutional Republic that uses a democratic process to elect public officials. You are officially outed as another ass talker. /thread

Rickman's mistake was the was endorsing fed res credit by not restricting his endorsement on the back of his checks, if you're gonna go spit in the dragon's face make sure you haven't forgotten your armor.

I can't believe you people are still beating this dead horse. Go out, buy a girl some flowers and get laid fer Christ's sake.

My distinction is very relevant, and is why I am very far ahead of you...

I been thinking this is the real reason for NDAA... once peeps figure out that we have to agree to this system with our free will because we are free will sovereign beings made in God's image, tptb will need the ability to arrest anyone without a reason... cuz the system is a legal free will contrivance... and when people stop complying the whole thing could crumble pretty fast...

clifford dean's story in canada best illustrates this, btw...

:)