Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

By examining documents, making obsevations, you can draw conclusions that can make you relatively confident... But, "you" will never be 100%, until you do it...

Oh, confidence the Sovereign Citizen folks have. But a firm understanding of the law? Nope. Their record of failure is overwhelming.

For example, if a sovereign citizen guy looks at the United States and is 'confident' that it only includes DC and the territories, it still doesn't change the fact that its been recognized by courts as far back as the 1820s as including the States. This isn't an issue that has been overlooked. Its about as firm in precedent as can be established, with approaching 2 CENTURIES of consistent rulings on the matter.

So a sovereign citizen to deciding unilaterally that *he* must be right and the USSC and all the courts for the last 2 centuries must be wrong doesn't amount to much. It doesn't matter how confident you 'feel'.

Feelings don't change the law anymore than sovereign citizen pseudo-legal gibberish does. The law does applies to sovereign citizens the same way it does everyone else. There is no secret syntax that makes them exempt from the law or from taxes. There's no self proclaimed status, no secret handshake, no font on their birth certificate that makes them immune.

And this is the great disconnect for the sovereign citizen folks. They keep assuming that THEY decide what legal terms mean, that THEY decide which laws apply and which don't that THEY can invent any limit to government jurisdiction they can imagine....and the government is bound to whatever they make up.

No, it isn't.

They endorsed Federal Reserve Credit, they then refused to pay the owner of that credit a return of currency, that is a property crime.

And who says that the jurisdiction of taxation is based on the 'endorsement of federal reserve credit'?

Jurisdiction is established geographically. If you're in the US, then the US laws regarding the filing of tax returns and the payment of taxes applies. Same with all the others laws. If you're in Delaware, the laws of Delaware apply. If you're in Chicago, the laws of Chicago apply. And of course, most jurisdictions overlap considerably.

It doesn't matter if you've 'endorsed federal reserve credit', or what the font is on your birth certificate or what you call yourself, or what magical incantation of synatax you've used in court. The jurisdiction of the laws aren't based on fonts, or 'credit endorsements', or 'syntax'. They're based on geography.

These are *exactly* the kind of nonsense 'limits' to jurisdiction that the SC types absolutely love to make up. And their meaningless gibberish on this topic is as diverse as it is endless. They are immune to the law because their name is written in caps, no because of a fringe on a flag, wait...because they don't have dollars in their pockets.....no, because they demand 'lawful money', no because they have 'cracked the code' and use a secret syntax.

And on...and on....and on.

The problem being, none of these 'limits' actually exist. The SC guys have just imagined them. Instead of your 'special syntax' you might as well be reciting 'there once was a man from Nantucket' for as much relevance as it has to the actual law and the actual court decisions.

How come the commercial banks will not allow you to endorse your checks with this redeem in lawful money nonsense?

I am saying and have been saying that the question "does redeeming lawful money per 12 USC 411 redeem one from the income tax"? has NEVER been tried in court.

Neither has the 'if I put Nutella in my pants, I don't have to pay taxes' defense. But the courts have recognized as much relevance between Nuttella and the obligation to pay taxes as 12 USC 411 and the obligation to pay taxes.

Even logically, it doesn't make the slightest sense. As FRNs are lawful money, as recognized by the courts. How they does 'demanding FRN redemption in lawful money' have a thing to do with your tax burden.....when FRNs are lawful money?

There is no reason. Its an awkward, confused, nonsense argument for which there is no legal recognition. The titles are completely unrelated, with the the 'redemption' statutes in Title 12 and the obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes in Title 26.

The Federal Reserve and the IRS have nothing to do with each other. One would demanding something from one make you immune to the authority of the other? That would be like saying that because you 'demand' that your driver's license picture be retaken, that you no longer have to pay sales tax.

It just doesn't follow.

Forget the commercial banks. Check out Milan V. the US. Milan's demand that the government redeem his $50 federal reserve note for precious metals was tossed out as frivilous...with the courts recognizing the FRN as 'lawful money'.

To quote Dr. Phil....this dog won't hunt. Nor can they explain even a coherent rationale.

Its just another varient of the sovereign citizen 'magic incandation' nonsense. Where if they say just the right thing, they're immune from the law. In this case, if you 'demand redemption under Title 12 411, you don't have to pay taxes!'.

Yeah, the courts have never accepted the latest round of jiggery pokery as being even remotely valid. Or any of the last rounds either.

Federal Reserve notes are NOT lawful money unless and until they are endorsed as such, they then, via contract agreement become "LAWFUL MONEY" of contract between the endorser and the Federal Reserve BANKS.

Says who? Who came up with this imaginary limitation of 'endorsement' for FRN's to become lawful money?

You...citing you, perhaps?

Again, guys...you just making up hoops that the government has to jump through doesn't mean anything. You're offering us uninformed statements of personal opinion as a legal argument. If you want to make a legal argument, you need to cite the law and the courts.

Not yourself.

Especially if you're bringing this argument to a court of law. As a general rule, they could give two figs what *you* think the law is 'supposed' to mean.

Some of this one is outdated/wrong, I haven't watched the whole thing:



This one is good:



His videos on definitions are really useful/informative:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Dean is currently in custody, in solitary confinement maximum security. He's got some really good info:





[link to vimeo.com]

Sovereignty is about taking responsibilities for one's actions, not an excuse to be a fucktard.

I have watched the video, as part of my police training, its bullshit, made by the guy in the video because he lost his son in the shooting.

He takes it personally (which is understandable), but the fact remains, police and Government agents are the real threats to people, not the other way around.

Smiling....so you're a cop, huh? Does that mean that *you* are the real threat to the people?

Another example - I have the ace, that settles the publics 12 card deck... I hold the higher card, if I choose to play it that way... You say I do not, the public, peoples authority is the top... Do I allow you to coerce me with your opinion ??? No... I am confident, that I am right, and I will proceed...


Same problem....your 'confidence' and 'opinion' are subjective and personal. The law is far more objective. You could be 'confident' that by flapping your arms you can fly, and won't let anyone's talk of gravity or your lack of lift sway your 'opinion'. You can even babble about how you hold a 'higher card' than gravity.

You still hit the pavement after you jump from the building top.

The courts don't care what nonsense you tell *yourself*. They're concerned with the actual law and actual precedent. You don't define any legal term, you don't define any limit to jurisdiction, don't establish any law. You've established a 'legal' argument that only works inside your head....but isn't recognized in court.

What's the good of a 'legal' argument that doesn't work in court?

i agree,its meaningless but thats only becuase it will be recognised only when it doesnt conflict with a political or corporate agenda.i went to the meetings and groups and yes,did some circle jerking.i spoke to the bikies which is close to what i could find of an australian patriot movement.then i tried the indigenous equilvalent and found that more to my liking but never do i think either movements will suceed.u might as well paint a target on u.
no doubt there is massive spiritual and political corruption spewing out of this system to which there is a limit.given the level of ignorance of the moral majority,that limit is set pretty high,especially when it comes to economics and the fiat monetary system.the reality is theres nothing i can do about it so ur right.this is the system we have,a broke down corrupt system,that will keep expanding until we consume all the natural resources of the planet,civilization will crumble and we'll have to start all over again.

Might as well come out and say, "Anyone caught supporting states rights will be investigated, fined, and imprisoned."

i agree,its meaningless but thats only becuase it will be recognised only when it doesnt conflict with a political or corporate agenda.

I doubt it. The issue is subjective v. objective. Sovereign citizens insist that they are immune from the law and all taxation *if they say so*. Based on whatever pseudo legal babble they want to make up.

The law and the courts apply a more objective standard. Actual law, and actual precedent.

As long as we don't allow anyone and everyone to imagine their own legal definitions, imagine the law is whatever they want it to be....I suspect the SC movement is going to have trouble. Because their argument is overwhelmingly subjective.

For example....the US is only DC and the territories per the Sovereign citizen folks. Okay. The courts recognize it as all the States too. Now the SC guys can imagine all they want.......its highly unlikely that nearly 200 years of explicit legal precedent are going to be overturned because they've imagined a new legal definition.

And its this way across the board. FRNs can't be 'lawful money' until they've been 'endorsed as such'? Demanding that your FRN be 'redeemed' under Title 12, 411 somehow makes you immune from income taxes? Say who? This is just more made up nonsense. And it never ends with the SC. They are constantly imagining up new non-existent 'limits', new pseudo-legal babble.

And none of it means a thing as long as the courts and the law don't recognize it.

This is the great disconnect. This is the battle of subjective to objective. And overwhelmingly, the objective wins in court.

Might as well come out and say, "Anyone caught supporting states rights will be investigated, fined, and imprisoned."

You can support pretty much whatever you want. But neither your support nor your opinion change the law or court decisions.

Just say they are owned and call these serfs idiots.

Obviously, we are not on the same page...

I have consistently informed you - I look for remedy within the existing framework...

So, let's leave it at this - do what you do, and I will do what I do...

He's saying you are a slave to the system, even if you believe in Santa, Tooth fairy, Frosty the snowman or whatever.

Regulate the value of gold? Never made that claim.

Set of the amount of "$" dollars the US will give you per troy ounce. Right there in black and white.

What else YOU got liar?

I have consistently informed you - I look for remedy within the existing framework...

Nodding....many of the 'sovereign citizen' types are. But they still run into the same brick wall of subjective v. objective. That you wish to navigate the existing system of law and precedent by imagining pseudo-legal definitions and pseudo-legal limits to government authority doesn't work.

Even if you're 'confident' in your imagined definitions and limits.

As neither your subjectively created definitions nor limits are recognized by are more objective system of laws and precedent. And its that lack of legal recognition that results in your theory producing such poor results in court.

Regulate the value of gold? Never made that claim.

Yes, you did talk of the value of gold being regulated. Right here:



And you're wrong. The value you're citing is for *accounting* purposes in the treasury when reporting the assets its holds. The dollar value of gold in the US is *not* regulated to any particular value. You're citing an accounting contrivance as a national regulation.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with your muddled, confused argument.

The FRN is unrelated to the value of gold. Gold's price goes up, gold's price goes down...and the dollar chugs along with pretty much the same buying power as it had before. You can't exchange the FRN for gold. You can't redeem the FRN for gold.

So why would the Treasury's regulated value for gold for accounting purposes have a thing to do the value of the dollar?

There is no reason.

Third, the courts already settled this issue in Rickman V. the US. The FRN is lawful money.

You say 'uh-uh'. In a legal battle of you v. the courts on legal definitions, the courts win every time.

Any other misconceptions you'd like me to pop like a fevered boil?

He's saying you are a slave to the system, even if you believe in Santa, Tooth fairy, Frosty the snowman or whatever.

I'm saying that the laws apply to you even if you make up an imaginary status or secret handshake.

All the babble about 'slavery' is yours.

That's right! Call it what you want. Stealing is a crime. Murder is a crime. It's just gobbledygook of words from some other men trying to enslave the masses.

Stop believing in secret handshakes. And believe in the Easter Bunny or Uncle Sam. LOL

That's right! Call it what you want. Stealing is a crime. Murder is a crime. It's just gobbledygook of words from some other men trying to enslave the masses.

Stop believing in secret handshakes. And believe in the Easter Bunny or Uncle Sam. LOL

You're the 'Uncle Sam' guy? The poor, hapless soul who kept trying to insist that Uncle Sam was a real guy we sent our taxes to?

You seem a little confused.

Are you the tax cheat named Marc Rich?

Are you the tax cheat named Marc Rich?

Nope. Should I add 'Marc Rich' to the growing and elaborate list that you folks have invented for me?

Though kudos on being the first person to *ask* me, rather than make 'sovereign citizen' style bold declaration about a topic you know nothing about.

Don't worry your ego is far to big for Marc Rich and his pal Bill. LOL

How is the criminal enterprise racket going? lol

How is the criminal enterprise racket going? lol

Again, you seem a bit confused.

Can I take it from your wholesale abandonment of the topic of 'sovereign citizens' that you've conceded that your claims are useless flotsam?

FRNs are lawful money that shall be redeemed in lawful money.

The courts said that Rickman received lawful money when he cashed his paycheck and used them to pay for things. (well, he did, since he endorsed them as being LAWFUL via contract).

AS ISSUED FRNS ARE NOT LAWFUL MONEY THEY ARE LEGAL TENDER, the "court" cannot change the FACT that 12 USC 411 states "they shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand" and J's ignorance of contract endorsement cannot either.

Once endorsed as LAWFUL MONEY, they become lawful money.

For those who think 12 USC 411 is just being misapplied, so be it, but you cannot provide one court case to back that claim, nor can you provide any reason why FRNS cannot be redeemed for lawful money on demand.

Now, if you do not like that FRNS shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand, write or call your congress critter and tell them to CHANGE 12 USC 411, till then, it is the law. That is how it work in your Government, right "J"?

But, until that law is CHANGED it is the LAW, like it or not, you cannot have it both ways.


DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411

Gee, look at this:

"But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt."

[link to supreme.justia.com]



So, there it is "J" and everyone else, YOU "indorse in blank" any DEBT instrument, you OWN THAT DEBT.

YOU are obligated to pay it the second you endorse it or get it "hand to hand".

No cites there of anyone but the SCOTUS!

I too, used to be a control freak statist... then I took an arrow in the knee.