Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

That is EXACTLY what I have been posting about this entire thread! YOU assume ALL liabilities of "bills" and "notes" when you indorse them!

HAHAHAHHHAAh, whatcha got to say now, J?

OWNED.

Well J.?

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).

The court said straight up that FRNs were lawful money. There was no mention of 'contracts' or anything else as the basis of this beyond plain ol' congressional authority. Nor any mention that the FRNs were lawful money *because* Rickman did anything.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 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."

US V. Rickman

They couldn't be clearer. But just incase you needed another stroll down 'completely obvious' lane:


Defendant claims error in the instruction that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. We have held that they are.

US V. Rickman

Resolving the issue. FRNs are lawful money. 'Sovereign Citizen' folks can 'say' that they aren't....but their personal opinions really don't amount to much.

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

You've got it backwards. It doesn't say you 'own' the debt. It says you *have* the debt. That the debt is now owed TO you.

Not BY you, as the confused sovereign citizen argument has made out.

Whosoever holds the promissory note is owed the debt. And that the promissory note can be passed from hand to hand, but that regardless of who holds it....the debtor to pay the promissory note is obligated to pay the holder, whom ever they may be.

You've awkwardly tried to twist this into the HOLDER somehow being contractually obligated to so something, or somehow obligated to pay something.

As usual, the sovereign citizen folks have it exactly backwards. The holder is obligated to do nothing. Nor is contractually bound in any way. Nor assumes any responsibility for the debt. The holder is who the debt is paid to. Its the debtor, not the holder, that is contractually bound and obligated to pay.

And so it is with the dollar. If I hold a $20 bill, its the government that is obligated to pay me, as the holder of the bill. I don't suddenly acquire the debt myself, nor am I obligated to pay it to anyone. And whom ever I give or trade the $20 bill, the government is similarly obligated to pay them.

Not the other way around. No one is 'contractually obligated' to do a thing if they are the holder of government debt.

Echo On

That is EXACTLY what I have been posting about this entire thread! YOU assume ALL liabilities of "bills" and "notes" when you indorse them!

And you don't know what you're talking about. The holder of the promissory note is the person the debt is own TO. Not the person the debt is owned FROM.

A promissory note is a promise to pay from a debtor to the holder of the note. In the case of Wheeler V. Sohmer, its a note of the Southern Railway Company held in safety deposit box in NY. Whom ever holds this promissory note is the party that Southern Railway Company is obligated to pay. Not the person that is obligated to pay Southern Railway Company.

You've got it exactly backwards.

Again, read the actual ruling. They're trying to decide if the promissory note itself is taxable, as its allows the holder to GET MONEY.

Why in God's name would they be taxing a debt where the holder has to PAY money? You aren't taxed for debts that you owe. You're taxed for income that you receive. And the State of NY is arguing that inheriting a promissory note where someone is obligated to PAY YOU is income.

Do you finally get it?

Sigh....as usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

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


Laughing!

Okay, that's funny.

I am an individual.
I am unique.
I have a name and a history all of my own.
My thoughts are my own.
I have free will and a conscience.
I have the RIGHT to think how I will for myself.
I have the RIGHT to question and analyze what is presented to me.
I have the RIGHT to doubt and to praise whomever and whatever I will!
I have the RIGHT to believe what I want!

All true. But the law and courts aren't bound to what you believe.

And that's the grand disconnect for the sovereign citizens. They keep asserting that if THEY make up some pseudo-legal gibberish, that the courts are obligated to abide it.

Um, no....they aren't.

That doesn't make any sense.

If you hold a $20 bill, what exactly is the government obligated to to pay you for? Besides the fiat $20 Federal Reserve Note, what else is the government going to use as payment? Gold? Silver? Shares of Goldman Sachs?

Now J. be nice. You can not blame people for wanting desperately to return, and reclaim, the country that we all loved, before the Lawyers and other politicians highjacked it.

f you hold a $20 bill, what exactly is the government obligated to to pay you for? Besides the fiat $20 Federal Reserve Note, what else is the government going to use as payment? Gold? Silver? Shares of Goldman Sachs?

Again, you don't understand how debt instruments work. If you say, buy a municipal bond for $1000 dollars, that doesn't mean that you are now obligated to pay $1000 to the city as the holder of the bond. That means that the city is obligated to pay you as the holder of the bond.

The sovereign citizen folks have, in one of the most obtuse and comical misunderstanding of debt instruments I've ever seen....insisted that since you hold the $1000 municipal bond....that it is YOU that owes the city money.

That's blithering nonsense. Its the city (debtor) that owns the holder (you) a $1000.

In the case of the dollar, its a debt instrument redeemable for 'lawful money'. Which at the moment, includes another FRN. The FRN transmits actual value and has actual buying power. You could, for example, go down to the local Burger King and trade FRNs for a whopper, or go to best buy and trade them for a big screen TV.

These are currency, lawful money and legal tender in our country. And they most definitely transmit tangible value to the holder of the debt.

But an obligation FROM the holder to PAY a debt? That's useless idiocy. The holder is obligated to do nothing nor owes nothing. He's the person the debt is paid to.

The sovereign citizen folks have it exactly backward.

Now J. be nice. You can not blame people for wanting desperately to return, and reclaim, the country that we all loved, before the Lawyers and other politicians highjacked it.

I can understand the desire to 'reclaim' something you think you've lost.

But the HOLDER of a promissory note being obligated to pay the DEBTOR?

That's just someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. And the sovereign citizen movement is just riddled with such nonsense arguments.

I think this is a legitimate misunderstanding on the part of J.

I think this is a legitimate misunderstanding on the part of J.

Sorry, Miss....but the holder of a promissory note isn't the one obligated to pay anything. They are the ones the debt is paid to. Its the debtor that is obligated to pay, not the holder.

You sovereign citizen folks have it backwards. You've profoundly misunderstood what debt instruments actually are.

Which might explain why SC arguments just don't work well in court.

Very True!
But why did you cut the rest of it?

J. I understand the working of an attorney's mind is not as uncomplicated as mine, or some of the others on this thread. However, unless you have been under a rock for the last decade or so, why do you not see the utter devastation that was our country? Our healthcare is a mockery, Drs. going to prison if they attend an emergency patient before the new god panel goes to work at 9:00 am and makes the decision as to what they (the emergency patient that is not a member of Congress) may have administered as treatment and meds. Watching the power mongers rip our wonderful Constitution to shreds by enacting the most draconian laws ever stuffed up anyone's butt! The blatant fraud by buying Presidents (or those who are passed off as such)and usurping the choice of the people. What about the strange "suicides" and cremations of live humans instead of due process? You, of all people, would undoubtedly be the first to say "innocent until proven guilty!"
Why, on God's green Earth, would you say you have no idea what the people think they have lost? OH sorry ... may I say "God" in your presence or in a conversation directed toward you?

If it is unconstitutional and if enough people refuse to partake then it becomes null.

If its unconstitutional according to who? You singularly declaring that some law you don't like is 'unconstitutional' doesn't amount to much. The judiciary is the body authorized to adjudicate cases that arise under the constitution.

Not you.

And this is where the sovereign citizen argument just falls apart. They insist that any law they don't like is unconstitutional *because they say so*. Um, no...it isn't. None of the 'sovereign citizen' folks decide which laws are valid and which not, they define no legal term, they define no jurisdiction.

The law and the courts do.

I understand the working of an attorney's mind is not as uncomplicated as mine, or some of the others on this thread. However, unless you have been under a rock for the last decade or so, why do you not see the utter devastation that was our country? Our healthcare is a mockery, Drs. going to prison if they attend an emergency patient before the new god panel goes to work at 9:00 am and makes the decision as to what they (the emergency patient that is not a member of Congress) may have administered as treatment and meds. Watching the power mongers rip our wonderful Constitution to shreds by enacting the most draconian laws ever stuffed up anyone's butt! The blatant fraud by buying Presidents (or those who are passed off as such)and usurping the choice of the people. What about the strange "suicides" and cremations of live humans instead of due process? You, of all people, would undoubtedly be the first to say "innocent until proven guilty!"
Why, on God's green Earth, would you say you have no idea what the people think they have lost? OH sorry ... may I say "God" in your presence or in a conversation directed toward you?

And what does any of that have to do with the holder of a promissory note being the person a debt is paid to? Or the profound, almost parody-like misunderstandings that the sovereign citizen folks have made regarding the nature of debt instruments?

Which are the topics I'm addressing.

J. I am not yet a "sovereign citizen folk." I do understand the person you are saying is all wrong and backward, is wondering what the US gov. will use to make the money, we are forced to use as legal tender, worth what it is suppose to be, or what the gov. passes off as worth a certain denomination of "money." The paper the Fed Res prints is worthless. What will the gov. use to make it worth the denomination it has printed on the face. Face value.
We were taken off the gold standard and the silver standard. We are getting ripped off ... Yes .. J. ..?

But why did you cut the rest of it?

As the rest made a break from simple statements of fact which I quoted....to statements of baseless conjecture and subjective personal opinion.

I do understand the person you are saying is all wrong and backward, is wondering what the US gov. will use to make the money, we are forced to use as legal tender, worth what it is suppose to be, or what the gov. passes off as worth a certain denomination of "money."

Its worth what we agree it is...as is all fiat currency.

The person I'm contradicting is asserting that the holder of Federal Reserve Notes now *owes* the denomination. And is now under implied contract to pay it.

Which wrong. Laughably, embarrassingly wrong. The holder of promissory notes is the person the debt is paid to. Not the debt is owed from.

Now you can debate whether the debtor (the US) has anything of value to pay the holder (anyone with a FRN in their pockets). And then we get into the nature of fiat currency, arguments about 'intrinsic value', etc.

But at no point does holding a FRN obligate you to do anything, or transfer any debt TO you. The entire idea is useless nonsense.

And that's the idea that I'm taking apart.

Well J. If the pos gov. we have right now was not doing it's damnedest to destroy our way of life and our ability to make a living, feed our children, pay our bills, and leave us alone to be the law abiding citizens (there is a word for you J. citizen) and not stick us under Admiralty law which gives them the unfounded right (right, another important word) to declare us all terrorists, which is a real problem for most of us since some of us have never even had a speeding ticket ... leave our currency alone and stop ramming Keynesian economics down our throats ... we would not be having this conversation in the first place!!!

Well J. If the pos gov. we have right now was not doing it's damnedest to destroy our way of life and our ability to make a living, feed our children, pay our bills, and leave us alone to be the law abiding citizens (there is a word for you J. citizen) and not stick us under Admiralty law which gives them the unfounded right (right, another important word) to declare us all terrorists, which is a real problem for most of us since some of us have never even had a speeding ticket ... leave our currency alone and stop ramming Keynesian economics down our throats ... we would not be having this conversation in the first place!!!

I picking my battles, Miss. And none of that is within the scope of my argument. I wish you the best with it though.

J. I am merely answering the questions you posed to me.

J. I am merely answering the questions you posed to me.

Well, I'm discussing the sovereign citizen movement and its various pseudo-legal claims. When and if you'd ever like to join me, I'll be about.

The topics you've raised are quite broad and outside the scope of the arguments I'm making. I wish you the best with them.

I sincerely doubt that you do (wish me the best with it) since it is characters like you that have made this mess in the first place. Sorry J. The people on this thread are trying to educate themselves so the congress and crooked judges can no longer take advantage of the present brand of law and politics that are so damaging to them. None in a court of Admiralty law will tell them the true protection they have and are entitled to under the law ... not the bogus law you all are wielding now. It may be legal, for all of you, but it is not necessary to abuse the common person who does not speak legalese. They don't know their rights and lawyers and judges certainly will not explain it to them. This is all self defense and they will not always make the mistakes you say they are now.

The people on this thread are trying to educate themselves so the congress and crooked judges can no longer take advantage of the present brand of law and politics that are so damaging to them.

I disagree. The folks in this thread are overwhelmingly coming up with nonsense gibberish that has a very poor track record of assisting them with any legal matter.

There is no special status, no secret hand shake, no imaginary legal definition, no currency in your pocket or special syntax incantation that makes one immune from the law or taxation.

Most of the pseudo-legal nonsense posted in this thread is of the caliber of the poster than insisted that the HOLDER of a promissory note is somehow obligated to pay the debtor.

Namely, worthless idiocy.

I've said repeatedly that if folks want to change the law, they should elect folks that share their views. That this will actually get results. Useless rhetorical masturbation where one anonymous guy on the internet agrees with another about a legal definition they've both imagined its meaningless.

Oh, its entertaining for me. But my enjoyment is unlikely to be the goal for those here.

So I wish you well in your arguments and hope that you can do something productive with your pursuit of a resolution. Good luck.

J. I am not pursuing a resolution. I am not a sovereign person. I have many friends who are attorneys and I think formal education tends to take away heart and soul. The people here are trying to learn how to protect themselves in a court of law not made for them. The courts now are geared for the protection of the corporation only. You know the games played on the common person in these courts and there is a better way. They merely want to hold the courts, attorneys, and judges to a higher level. honesty would be a good start. Why don't you make some useful suggestions, instead of misunderstanding what they say, and be helpful ... what a concept. Helping the common person .. wow ...