HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?

...but I have been a law librarian for over thirty years and, let me tell you, these "sovereign man" and "don't have to pay no taxes" theories are complete nonsense. Take it to court; you will lose. I can't tell you how many times I've chased this stuff down. All of it is legal-sounding mumbo-jumbo; anyone who buys it being buffaloed. I challenge anyone to provide any citation to any court anywhere where these idiotic theories have been successful. Grow up and face reality.

Using the ExemptionWhat so you say when the judge asks why you have a right to use the exemption as we call it? Below is what we have learned to say:
What gives you the right to do this/What did you give?"
The instrument tendered in discharge of this debt is an "Obligation of THE UNITED STATES," under Title 18 USC Sect.8, representing as the definition provides a "certificate of indebtedness ….drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States," (in this case the Secretary of the Treasury) "issued under an Act of Congress" (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933 and Title 31 USC 3123), which establish this and provide for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties who are bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.To my knowledge, This is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to the public debt.
This has been a difficult concept for others to grasp and to know how to use it, so its never gained common use.
But It is a fact:, During the financial crisis of the depression, in 1933 substance of gold, silver and real money was removed as a foundation for our financial system.
In its place the substance of the nation was, in effect, hypothecated by the government as the collateral for US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function.
This is well documented from the laws passed by Congress at that time, and if the Court questions this I will be happy to provide that information for its review.
But It is a fact: The entire financial reorganization of the United States continues on from 1933 backed by the private assets and wealth of that class of persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government's obligations and currency by their implied consent, through the government having provided remedy for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk.
And even though the right to the remedy is not commonly understood, it is still an obligation the United States has bound itself to and has provided for in statutory law. and the United States still accepts these non-cash accrual exchanges today as a matter of law and equity. This is my understanding of the reason for this, your honor, but there may be others I do not know of.
It is a fact: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.
It says, "the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt" and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as "the net public debt".
It is a fact: Title 18 Sect. 8 defines "obligation of the United States"..."to include" all certificates of indebtedness drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act of Congress," which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.It is also a fact, every day the United States Treasury department receives dozens or hundreds of such instruments making claims of this type. Some are valid and some are not.
And It is a fact: There are only 3 official government directives or alerts that address spurious, fraudulent, fictitious, or otherwise invalid, instruments sent to the US Treasury for payment, and only one that officially states what is to be official US government policy and treatment of them if they are received, this is ALERT 99-10: which is also published on the government website for the United States Treasury: [link to www.publicdebt] [url may be incorrect; try searching under Frauds and Phonies]It says: " Any of these instruments that are presented to the U. S. Treasury for payment will be returned to the sender."
So as we told them, get them to send it on in and if its not any good, it will comeback, just like a bad check. But they wouldn't do that and so we are here today.
I would ask what facts would our opponent or the Court dispute?
Would the Court dispute the fact the substance of those legal classes of persons:
their real property, wealth, assets, and labor that belongs to them, has been pledged by the government and placed at risk as the collateral that is now backing the obligations of the United States as Congress plainly declares?
Would the Court claim remedy for recovery on their risk is not what has been provided in the statutes we have cited here? And that this is not an acknowledged obligation of the United Stated as shown here?
Your honor, We didn't create the financial reorganization in 1933 or the basis it is built on. We weren't born.
I didn't define the terms to be what they are
or write the laws of Congress the way they have written them to provide the right to access such remedy in the way they have done it. But I would respectfully suggest that plaintiff and the honorable Court are going to have to accept what Congress has provided for in this Country in discharge of the public debt to those whom it is due, or somehow show in law that this is not so.
Congress has defined ‘Obligation of the United States’,It has defined those classes of persons who have right to access this remedy on the obligation of the United States due them in discharge of the public debt in the way that Congress has provided.
What more can we say? This is the way it is.
If our opponent wants to show otherwise they are free to do so if they can.
To my knowledge this is a lawful means of discharge of debt against the obligation of the United States for equity interest recovery due in discharge of the public debt. I have not seen or been presented with any evidence to the contrary, and I am of the firm belief there is none.
The objective is to establish on the record the facts in a way they cannot refute you and do not have the facts or evidence to show otherwise.

SHIBUMI2 where are you?

SHIBUMI2 where are you?


at your service...what's up?

shibumi2

what can any of you tell me about fighting an administrative action by the state DMV three years after the alleged offense?? especially when the adjudicated statute clearly says they have 90 days to commence enforcement action??

thanks in advance

HI GLP.

I have a legal/financial issue that may be going to court soon. I cannot afford to lose!

I lost my job some time ago and was unable to keep up on payments for a car loan.

While considering declaring bankruptcy I discovered the 'Straw man'/Soveriegnty websites out there. Here are the sites i have found.

[link to www.worldnewsstand.net]

[link to www.the7thfire.com]

[link to www.halexandria.org]

[link to www.wealth4freedom.com]

Does anyone know if this stuff really works? Any legal eagles out there can tell me about this or if there is an alternative recourse?

I need someone who is not just preprogrammed by the system but someone who has tried it.

"9482 doesnt realize the entire system is based on fraud. Its designed to screw us over. The fact that I borrowed money doesnt mean that I wasnt unknowingly being defrauded."

So basically you are a dumbass who can't read and understand a debt instrument?

The "Straw Man"!.
:munkee: See, even the chimp knows better.
____________________________________________________

The "Straw Man"!.
See, even the chimp knows better.
____________________________________________________



How about transmitting utility then....

SHIBUMI2 where are you?

Hi all, I LOVE this thread. From what I understand, most of these concepts are based on either Common Law or UCC. I live in Ontario, Canada. Does anyone know how these processes would work up here? :)

SHIBUMI2 where are you?


at your service...what's up?

shibumi2


I know this is not for me, but...I have read this thread over 5 times already after being in other forums discussing this type of issues. But, no one has done it as clear as you and with such heart. Thank you so much, shibumi2, for your bravery, encouragement and disposition to help. And to all others who also contributed, thanks as well.

...but I have been a law librarian for over thirty years and, let me tell you, these "sovereign man" and "don't have to pay no taxes" theories are complete nonsense. Take it to court; you will lose. I can't tell you how many times I've chased this stuff down. All of it is legal-sounding mumbo-jumbo; anyone who buys it being buffaloed. I challenge anyone to provide any citation to any court anywhere where these idiotic theories have been successful. Grow up and face reality.

what can any of you tell me about fighting an administrative action by the state DMV three years after the alleged offense?? especially when the adjudicated statute clearly says they have 90 days to commence enforcement action??

thanks in advance

Hello everyone,

First and foremost, a special thanks to all of those posters and thread contributors that have made this one of the most enjoyable reads of all of my research during my Sovereign Awakening as I like to call it.

I can't help but to feel a genuine bond and connection with the experiences that have been shared here. Today, I realized just how much of a fight we're in.

MY PERSONAL UCC/Sovereignty Real Life Application.

Today I applied for a South Carolina Driver's License (required by my new employer).

I took care to gather all of the necessary "documents" that the DMV requires in order to obtain your contract, er...um....i mean uh....... license.

So I arrive at the DMV with the required documents (in my particular case, a US Passport, SS Card and utility bill) and I'm already feeling as if I'm getting scammed.

Incidentally, I had also already downloaded and completed the "SC Credential Application" as they call it, and I had affixed a rubber stamp signature block at the "Signature" line which read:


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
UCC § 1-308
"Without Prejudice"

This stamp has a border line that extends below the last line far enough to leave space for my actual autograph.

In this empty space, I wrote: "By: Sovereign Newb, AGENT"

This was all done previously before going to DMV.

Everything was going smoothly as the clerk made copies of my documents and even laughed and made small talk about where I had travelled with my passport.

As soon as I handed "Ms. Clerk" my completed application, she immediately began her normal filling out of the 'Office Use Only' section, she then paused, and I could see that she was reading my signature block.

She completed her clerical additions, and then said, "I'll be right back..." and disappeared into a back den (of thieves). She reemerged after 2 or 3 minutes and tried to comfort me by saying, "Sorry, I had to get so and so...." (as if I cared). Another woman appeared shortly after Ms. Clerk and began aimlessly opening and closing and restacking some boxes that happened to be sitting there, the entire time keeping her eyes glued to the clerk's actions and on ME! I got the feeling that they weren't happy...

At this time, the Clerk was finishing her additions to the form and I asked if I might have a photocopy of the newly completed form. Both women disappeared to yet another back room. They came back shortly thereafter and said I needed to send a request to DMV Headquarters and pay $6.00 to get a copy of the forms. They provided me with the correct form to send to DMV HQ. At this time, two more "higher ups" if you will, came out of the second back room and walked down to my clerk's area and were sniffing around. So now I have 4 DMV employees hovering around the clerk and me, simply because I asked for a photocopy? (They never acknowledged or questioned me about the signature block).

I paid my tax...er...um...i mean, license fee, and proceeded to have my picture taken (I knew the fun was just getting started).

My name was called and I was asked to stand against the blue wall and the picture was taken. The woman distracted me by commenting on the "niceness" of my smile. She then, with a gleaming smile of her own, casually said, "And if you could just sign here on this pad for me sweetie, we'll get you all squared away". I shit you not, she said, "...we'll get you all squared away". What a load!

Still distracted, I picked up the pen and started to move my hand up to sign, then, my gameplan kicked back in, and I realized how casually people sign their butts away each and every day.

I began writing the words, "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and the "Examiner" who had taken my picture started saying my name. I ignored her and continued writing and I was only able to get the letters "ALL RIGH..." written down before the examiner physically reached out and touched my arm and said, you can't do that, you can only put your name there.

I inquired as to why not, and the first of many failed attempts to explain was launched.

The following is an account of what happened...

ME: Why can't I write that?

EXAMINER: Because you have to sign your name.

ME: I am going to sign my name.

EXAMINER: But you can't put that there.

ME: Why can't I put that there?

EXAMINER: Because I said you can't!

ME: Can you show me that in writing, where it says that I cannot put those words, or that I must only write my name and no other words?

EXAMINER (visibly irritated now) leaves and returns about 3 minutes later with one of the "higher ups" from before. This woman identifies herself as the ASST. MANAGER and proceeds to tell me that I can only sign my legal name as it appears on my birth certificate.

I said that I didn't sign my birth certificate, so how could she use that as a basis for how or what to sign here today?

She was attempting to use the "I'm getting visibly upset and stern with you, so you must backdown and take our explanation". (kinda reminded me of an old 2nd grade teacher).

Backdown I did not.

Meanwhile, the EXAMINER was there still commenting.

EXAMINER: He wants to put ALL RIGHTS RESERVED there! I told him he can't do it!

ME: (while looking directly at EXAMINER) That's interesting, because you never gave me the chance to finish what I was writing, but now here you are, telling them what I was going to write....hmmm...you must have heard of this before!?!

(I didn't hear another peep out of the EXAMINER).

The ASST. MGR produced a checklist for DMV issuance of license and attempted to again point out that a birth certificate was needed to get a license. I asked what this had to do with my signature and she said, well it has to say what the birth certificate says.

I asked her for something in writing that showed that they could restrict me from writing ALL RIGHTS RESERVED above my autograph.

She tried to tell me it was a DMV "policy" which I ignored, again demanding to be shown a law or in writing where I was restricted from signing my name how I wanted to.

She again declined and attempted to give me a past example of how a doctor wanted to add M.D. to his signature but was not allowed.

I countered with "Are you willing to sign a document saying that you refuse to issue the license unless I signed the way you wanted me to, just so I can have some proof that that's what happened?

Get this...she says, "No, the proof will be the fact that either you don't have a license, or that you have a license WITHOUT that on there." Give me a frickin' break!!!

She then began trying to make me feel guilty by referencing the line of people waiting to get their licenses and noting how this was holding everybody up. I chuckled and pressed on....

I was able to obtain the EXAMINER's and ASST. MANAGER's first names and positions and as soon as I started asking for these, the ASST. MGR left and returned with the other "higher up" who I can assume to have been the GENERAL MGR.

Also, the on duty Sherrif at the DMV made his way over to the license area in an attempt to intimidate me...He glared menacingly at me and refused to engage with me when I greeted him and asked him how his day was going.... [Oooooh Scary!!!]

The GM received a quick recount of the happenings and then proceeded to try to tell me that it was a DMV policy and he too tried to cite the "doctor" example. It's like they practice this shit!

I asked for something in writing that said I cannot sign the way I wanted to. Meanwhile, the clearly agitated ASST. MGR, says, "Show me a law that says you can put that there!"

Of course I wouldn't let you guys down, I countered with, "Show me a law that says I can't! That's my whole point!".

Dumbfounded, both MGRS disappeared into yet another back office and the Sheriff moseyed on away. I timed it and they made me stand there for 19 minutes, while they "looked up the LAW" in the back room.

During this time, I overheard other clerks talking about me and talking about how I "..had them [the managers] scared" and "...they [mgrs] are scrambling around over this"

I stood quietly and patiently for the entire 20 minutes...meanwhile, other suckers were happily signing away their rights on their licenses (the MGRs had asked me to step aside).

When the MGR returned (alone) he had a printout of a section of the SC State Code § 56-1-140 which reads as follows:

Upon the payment of a fee of twelve dollars and fifty cents for a license that is valid for five years, or twenty-five dollars for a license that is valid for ten years, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall issue to every qualified applicant a driver's license as applied for by law. The license must bear on it a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee, the full name, date of birth, and residence address and a brief description and laminated colored photograph of the licensee, and a facsimile of the signature of the licensee or a space upon which the licensee shall write his usual signature with pen and ink immediately upon receipt of the license. No license is valid until it has been so signed by the licensee. The license authorizes the licensee to operate only those classifications of vehicles as indicated on the license.

I had studied the Motor Vehicle section of the SC State code intensely for about 3 days prior to going to DMV, so I knew the section above like the back of my hand.

GM: Here you go!

ME: What's this?

GM: That's the state code saying you have to use your usual signature!

(The GM pointed to the words "usual signature" in the code.)

ME: It doesn't say anything about not being able to write additional words or having to sign a certain way. I'm trying to sign my usual signature but you won't let me.
Is this the code you are citing for refusing to allow me to sign how I want to?

GM: Yes.

ME: Are you willing to sign a document that says that very same thing?

GM: No.

ME: Will you stamp this paper with a DMV date and time stamp to prove that you gave it to me?

GM: (Now very agitated) Are you SERIOUS??!?!?!?! I can't believe this!!!

(Clearly attempting to cause a scene; very loud; attention grabbing)

I have never had somebody go to such lengths over a signature!!! Why do you even want to do this!!!

ME: I'll be glad to tell you in a private setting sir.

At this point, GM and I go to his office, and he requests the presence of Sheriff Taylor in the room.

I explain exactly what ALL RIGHTS RESERVED means, and how it protects an individual's god given rights and liberties.

The GM was actually rather impressed with how I worded my explanation and began asking questions about "how it can be used".

I steered clear and gave cookie cutter answers like, "It could be used in a variety of ways".

After our little meeting, GM and I actually stood in the hall and talked for 5 mins, he seemed genuinely interested. It got to the point, where he said that he saw where I was coming from, but still couldn't issue the license how I wanted it because of DMV policy.

I said how can I appeal that decision, and he provided me with a Constituent Services number for SC DMV.

I signed the license, unconditionally, only to get hired at my job.

My question to all of the gurus in this thread, is:

What can I do now?
Should I somehow file the printout that is stamped with DMV stamp and signed by GM ? (can it be used in evidence or as support for AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH)
Should I call Constituent Services or should I correspond via certified mail?
Can I request to be cited a law that restricts me from doing this?
Should I have done something differently?
Am I barking up the wrong tree?

I feel like I came out slightly victorious, only because I made them sweat for an hour or so....but they still wouldn't give me the license the way I wanted it.

What say ye?


Sincerely,

Sovereign_Newb

what kind of sovereign pays a foreign state for permission to operate a vehicle. you stopped being a sovereign when you went to the DMV.

what kind of sovereign pays a foreign state for permission to operate a vehicle. you stopped being a sovereign when you went to the DMV.



I had no choice, my employer required it. Otherwise, I would be without work.

Can you offer any suggestions?

Sovereign_Newb