Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

what gives kings their powers to begin with????


artifcts known as coronation stones

royal lineage.....you could even say nephilim or "holy" blood (san grael)...

the consent of the governed.(more like utter complacency)


treaties


dumb luck


assigned by god himself (king David via prophet samuel)

vast and intricate network of alien dynasties and hierarchies that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years mostly underground and have covertly colonized this suzeraine among many other worlds because they are dodging some extra galactic enemy which also wants to colonize us.

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.

Sending checks to who? And with what evidence can you back the claim?

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.

So because the constitution *mentions* the federal courts jurisdiction over maritime issues (and about a dozen others), that means all courts are maritime?

Nonsense. If you believe that all courts are 'maritime commercial courts', then show us the law saying this. Show us the courts recognizing this. They don't, because we don't.

Its just another one of those bizarro head job conspiracies that you guys pass around these boards without the slighest question or thought. And of course, without the slightest evidence.

Surely you realize that your imagination doesn't actually change the nature of our legal system...or have any effect in the real world?

Yes?

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.

Ah, but you forget one minor detail: the real world. In this little bubble, you can parrot back and forth to each other whatever fantasies about 'font sizes on birth certificates' or 'maritime courts' or 'lawful money' all you like.

But it has absolutely no relevance in the courts or under the law. This is what you don't seem to get. You genuinely think that if you make up some imaginary loophole or fallacious 'limit' to government power, that the government is bound to whatever idiocy you invent.

Laughing....nope!

There's no secret hand shake or special font or particular syntax that magically makes you immune from the law. And despite all the inane and patently silly little conspiracies that your ilk keep pulling out of your collective asses, you still have to pay taxes. And all the same laws still apply to you.

Oh, you *say* they don't. You can babble endlessly about how all the requirements have But the taxes still get paid. And the speeding tickets. And the property taxes. And the sales taxes.

And for those few who are stupid enough to actually try and use your arguments in court? They go to jail.

As the law and courts don't recognize your pseudo-legal gibberish. Your theories.....are just plain irrelevant. My positions are that the law and the courts are authoritative.

And they are!

ickman'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.

Rickman's mistake was your mistake: he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. He didn't understand the law. And his 'legal' reasoning was simple minded gibberish.

And of course, we have another lovely example of cognitive dissonance.

Your theory that FRNs weren't 'lawful money' was tested and addressed by the court. And then laughed out of it, with the court *repeatedly* recognizing that FRNs are lawful money.

So do you amend your theory? Do you recognize your folly? Do you educate yourself in the slightest?

Of course not.

You just make up a brand new batshyte conspiracy and excuse for the failure of the *last* batshyte conspiracy. With you, citing you, insisting you must be right because you say you are.

You can't fix stupid.

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

<patting you on the head> Sure, buddy. Sure.

My thoughts exactly.

If you have such contempt for us bizarro head job conspiracy types, why the fuck are you hanging around a conspiracy site?

Got nothing better to do than troll GLP?

If you have such contempt for us bizarro head job conspiracy types, why the fuck are you hanging around a conspiracy site?

I enjoy debunking silly conspiracies, of course.

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.

You mean the American jurisprudence and legal precedent that recognizes Federal Reserve Notes as lawful money? The American jurisprudence and legal precedent that has has dismissed the pseudo-legal babble regarding 'sovereign citizens' being immune to taxation or the law as frivious and having no merit? The American jurisprudence and legal precedent that has affirmed your obligation to pay taxes, follow the laws, and possess a driver's license if you want to drive on public roads?

That American jurisprudence and legal precedent? The one you and your ilk routinely ignore in your little bubble of self delusion where you each cite *yourselves* as the law?

Sorry, buddy.....but all the silly nonsense that you imagine up, all the absurd loopholes and fictitious limits to the government (capital letters on your birth certificate anyone?), all the useless bullshyte you tell each other....

.....is contradicted by the law and the courts. And virtually every time one of your ilk is stupid enough to try use this idiocy in court.....they go to jail.

For one fundamental and inescapable reason: you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Get used to the idea.

Interest bearing hypothecated debt as the basis for a money system grows the total debt in an exponential manner. In every instance, the the debt must finally be written off in a process referred to in the Bible as a Jubilee.

Here is some discovery related to the subject of this email.

*********************************************************

Applying the Odious Debts Doctrine while Preserving Legitimate Lending

Seema Jayachandran
Michael Kremer
Jonathan Shafter1
June 2006

[link to iis-db.stanford.edu] (26 pages)

***********************************************
[link to www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com]
Michael Hudson noted in 2004:

Mesopotamian economic thought c. 2000 BC rested on a more realistic mathematical foundation than does today’s orthodoxy. At least the Babylonians appear to have recognized that over time the debt overhead became more and more intrusive as it tended to exceed the ability to pay, culminating in a concentration of property ownership in the hands of creditors.

***

Babylonians recognized that while debts grew exponentially, the rest of the economy (what today is called the “real” economy) grows less rapidly. Today’s economists have not come to terms with this problem with such clarity. Instead of a conceptual view that calls for a strong ruler or state to maintain equity and to restore economic balance when it is disturbed, today’s general equilibrium models reflect the play of supply and demand in debt-free economies that do not tend to polarize or to generate other structural problems.

Michael Hudson, in reference to Iceland Global Research, April 05, 2009:
[link to www.globalresearch.ca]

*************************************************

Murray Rothbard on repudiating the national debt with reference to odious debt - written 1992 (Rothbard passed away 1995)

[link to mises.org]

***************************************************

My opinion: Fraudulent debt is more applicable and the beneficiaries of such debt should lose all they gained, but the apparent presumption in the writings seems to be allow the gains and simply stop the process with a write off. (Jubilee)

We still need full time professional administration to run a dependable monetary system, but a far superior method of paying such professional administration can be by the process of demurrage (everyone pays). This process is something supported by Bernard Lietaer of Germany in a just released new book MONEY AND SUSTAINABILITY - THE MISSING LINK. This book was written with help from Christian Arnsperger, Sally Goerner, and Stefan Brunnhuber and is subtitled "A report from the Club of Rome - EU Chapter"

People who believe only gold and silver coin shall be money find the demurrage principle a severe blow to their belief system. However, using human time as the basis for redemption of a note enables a far better rationalization. (Time passes away while gold endures)

A far better method of using gold (and other precious metals) is as a recognized method of saving - thus divorcing the medium of exchange from the store of value - and where such precious metal coinage can be used as a partial backing to promissory notes - a performance bond role.

******************************

All of the above is found on page 49:

Thread: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments (Page 49)

However, I challenge each and all readers of the forepart of this thread on sovereign citizens to go to page one and read all of that thread.

The sovereign movement is closely tied to the money system problem; my goal is to help people rethink money and solve that problem in a far more stable manner.

Levi Philos

You mean, you 'enjoy the cash'

David M was on the track prior to this piece of writing; Notes of Debt are Not Income was a composite piece that began with a post from the Handyman of Louisiana to which I pasted significant information from "The Informer" (Carolina).

The final document you find in PDF form was composed by "Fred"

[link to duckduckgo.com (secure)]

The underlying but hidden question revolves around the question of seigniorage.

If we are to use credit entries as money, then to whom should the bookkeeping enter as the original creditor?

Nice piece of writing, but I do not support a version of full anarchy. My personal view is close to the concept of voluntarism.

Modern society is dependent upon division of labor and specialism in skill sets with a high degree of cooperation.

The money system is a complex memeplex - more religion than science while at the same time forms a cultural decision making machine.

Reform and reformation of the present system is discussed in some serious depth in this thread: Thread: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments

I do not claim to have all of the answers nor do I claim to be always correct.

Your thoughtful replies will be replied to in a respectful manner.

My Uncle Samuel stole my credit card while I had my back turned. He is a trouble maker who gambles wildly and frequently looses. He starts fights all over the place and is a spendthrift.

Now, my Uncle is complaining because I haven't been keeping up the payments...

Reflection upon written law...

Natural law trumps written law.

A group of people could get together and decide they were tired of having the sky colored blue. And send the air-force out to spray pink color in the sky until it turned pink.

It might succeed for a while, but then natural law would finally prevail.

No written law is that silly, however hidden presumptions might be embedded into written law that have the effect of error telescoping over time with permutations unforeseen by the originators of the law.

The permutations of using interest bearing hypothecated debt as the basis for a monetary system are now becoming apparent. The initial error was made under Roosevelt when the fifth plank of the communist manifesto was implemented.

The credit of the people was claimed to be the property of the government and the government in turn assigned the credit to the banks via "license." The credit entries the bank creates via the double entry bookkeeping system need to have an offset entry to the people.

This is the hidden error that is causing the present collapse in progress.

Thread: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments (Page 50)

Once a contract is endorsed, it carries lawful effect, until proven fraudulent.

Once FRNs are endorsed by use or signature, they become contractually LAWFUL, but remain DEBT INSTRUMENTS, the only thing that changes is who is obligated (now by law) to pay the debt, in goods and services, evidenced by the FRNS expressed in $$ amounts.

FRNS are NOT as issued, LAWFUL MONEY and NO court cases have ever ruled as such.

The Rickman case (and any other) that Jack off JEW keeps posting about are cases for AFTER the endorsement and use creates a lawful binding contractual agreement that the notes had lawful value.

The lawful 'value' of the FRNs did NOT exist inherently in the note before the agreements between the parties were reached and transpired!

They are then "lawful money" but the same could be said for any medium of exchange, sea shells to horse shit, if a value is agreed upon and the exchange takes place (or a contract is agreed upon) then the contract has just made the 'thing' 'lawful money' and enforceable by a court.

J continually refuses to (or is just too ignorant) to face the facts of contract law and contracts.

AS issued FRNS are legal tender and legal tender is just a legal OFFER until accepted it is NOT LAWFUL MONEY!

Statists usually rise to the top. Control freaks.

The John Birch Society created a half hour video that supports the concept of a limited republic. While I don't give blanket support to the Birch society, this video is quite effective and well done.

At one time or another the links fail, but bookmark both and search for the video (or purchase a DVD from them).

Full version [link to video.google.com]

There is a shorter 10-12 minute extraction from the center of the long version (for people with limited focus time)

Short version: [link to www.youtube.com]

I agree we should put all those tax cheats in prison where they belong. Ever hear of Marc Rich? Only if these morons would read Title U.S.C. 26 they wouldn't follow all this wizard of oz bullshit.

FRNS are issued not as "lawful money" but as negotiable, transferable DEBT NOTES (promissory notes).

Congress issues BONDS in a certain $ amount to the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve BANK, biased on a fractional reserve $ value of its actual "assets" then issues FRNS (printed or electronic) in the $ amount of the Bonds.

Those DEBT FRNS are issued per 12 USC 411 and regulated directly thereby.

The Notes (again, printed or electronic) are then distributed to Federal Reserve Bank accounts. The OBLIGATION to give goods and services (at face value) to the Federal Reserve lies with CONGRESS/the US. Plus interest on the "loan" of CREDIT.

But, persons/corporations are allowed to act in a legal capacity to access the NOTES and when they endorse said NOTES, they assume the OBLIGATION to pay the Federal Reserve (in goods and services at face value) BACK.

This takes the obligation off the US/Congress and places it directly on the back of the endorser.

That endorser also accepts the obligation to pay the interest on the debt.

Once endorsed or used as "money" the endorser is bound by law to pay back, in goods and services at face value, plus interest the face value of the NOTES.

The endorser then refuses to pay (Rickman) because he does not think FRNS are "lawful money". The court finds against him because HE made them lawful by his actions and agreement.

The FACT that the FRNS he used were not issued AS LAWFUL MONEY is moot, he endorsed them, he used them in fulfillment of HIS debts, public and private and the accepted the OBLIGATION TO PAY their owner, The Federal Reserve bank for their use.

The long version of "The Political Spectrum Explained" by the John Birch Society was first titled "Overview of America"

It has been broken into a four part series; part one:

[link to www.youtube.com]

The courts that idiot J keeps referring too are not "powerful" they are simply enforcing commercial contracts in
a 3rd party intervention.

The CONTRACT makes the law, all the court has to do is identify who was involved in the contract, get their side of the story and enforce the contract if it is not proven fraudulent, that is not the power of the COURT or judge as he likes to believe.

It is the power of the people to contract and make LAW. The power remains in the people but the illusion is it in the COURT or the Government, it is NOT.

It's in your SIGNATURE or ACTIONS.

Stop endorsing their contracts and demand your RIGHT to lawful money and reclaim your Creator endowed POWER.

Money, no money, items, promises, performance, paper, gold coins, irrelevant unless and until they are part of a contractual agreement legal and agreed upon by 2 or more parties.

The Congress/US has a contract with a Bank. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, unless and until YOU voluntarily put yourself into it!

Income tax is a direct result of YOU obligating yourself to it. Income Tax is voluntary, right? How exactly did you volunteer to perform in the contract between Congress and the Federal RESERVE BANK?

Simple, you signed on the dotted line or the back of your paycheck, or bank account and you did not INFORM THEM at that time that you were demanding your lawful money per 12 USC 411!!

You are IN if you did not OPT OUT!


DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411

In all cases, that is exactly what it is...

Any public instrument is always short, not full value...

It is the private, the one, that gives it full value...

Congress has the Constitutional authority to "coin money" and set the value thereof.

That is why the US Treasury and mints were created and the "lawful money" created under that power is not DEBT, it is actually valuable (set by congress at face value)

The Congress also has the power to BORROW credit (create debt) for the United States.

The main supplier of that debt is the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Government is OBLIGATED to pay them back, unless some sucker Citizen or Corporation assumes the DEBT via endorsement and volunteers to pay it back!

You are not obligated to do so until you take it upon yourself to do so. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411

I do not see any Politician telling the citizens how to get out of the contract, not even Ron Paul.

Is income tax VOLUNTARY or not?