Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

The fuck it ain't you do not pay, you go to prison "until you pay your debt to society".

Again, you've imagined a benchmark that doesn't exist. Whether or not he has 'redeemed' lawful money from central banks has nothing to do with whether or not the law has jurisdiction over him.

Its just meaningless gibberish that sovereign citizens tell themselves. It has nothing to do with the law.

Whether or not he's 'pledged to the debt he's owned by society' is irrelevant, as its imaginary. There is no such benchmark in the law. There is no such limit to government jurisdiction.

Once again, its just noise that sovereign citizen folks make up that is meaningless in the real world.

You citing yourself doesn't change the law. If you want to make a legal argument, quote the law and the courts.

Not yourself.

Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Anything the People do that is outside the control perimeters established by the PTB that would put THEIR agenda at risk, consequentially makes us "enemies of the State"! Is this a most dangerous relationship one can imagine? And it is being PROMULGATED and FOMENTED by the very people who are arguably and Constitutionally our SERVANTS! They are using our taxpayer funded institutions and agencies to their maximum possible potential to promote, support, and expand this belief, and it puts anyone who opposes them in the crosshairs of our law enforcement and judicial offices!

Our Congressmen are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for allowing this outrageous perception and attack upon peace loving and law abiding Citizens! They have become slavish, sychophantic, elitist ENABLERS to the crimes of agency being heaped upon America! They are ACCEPTING A BENEFIT, for PROFIT and for PAY, in return for their COMPLICITY and SILENCE against the atrocities being committed on a hourly and daily basis against the Constitution and the People! This is BRIBERY, EXTORTION AND RACKETEERING! We should be able to turn the tables on what they did to Jim Trafficant many years ago, the Congressman who dared to speak truth to power. I think we live in different times today.. that was a shot over the bow, by the defacto.. and we learned from it. It exposed how CORRUPT and COMPLICIT the defacto truly is!

These are Title 42 1983 class crimes, among others, which ought to be formed into charges of treason and RICO, against EVERY Congressman and head of agency, who does nothing to stop this madness! Do you think this is possible? I say it is, and either a class action or an action joined by the People on a singular basis, so that the case cannot be dismissed against the whole, but only one at a time!

When the People who are within the Rights granted them, and who are only intent upon protecting our Constitutional integrity, are made TARGETS for harassment and even political prisoners, and worse.. FELONS and CRIMINALS, who then are shot and killed by the very people who are expected to protect and serve them.. it's TIME FOR IT TO STOP!!

I've complained bitterly to my Congresscritter, and they just go "ho hum", is there anything else?

Citing yourself again, I see.

Where is the cite?

And where is the law that states the owner of the property has no rights to its use?

And FRN transmits NO VALUE the US treasury states so on the link I provided. An FRN is not a Debit card, its not a BOND and you fucking posting it "akin" to is utter and complete bullshit,

"THE NOTES HAVE NO VALUE FOR THEMSELVES" that is a direct quote from the US Treasury website.

Again, you are claiming the US owes you money so where is the law that states that?

CITING YOURSELF AGAIN all the while ranting about how "thats whut sovruns du"

keep posting, even though you post nothing new, it fun to watch you expose your own lies over and over hoping someone, besides you will believe them

And if ownership of the FRN has nothing to do with, why will not simply admit YOU do not OWN THE FRNS you use as money?

You have been weighed and measured and been found wanting, again.

Citing your own posts and self cites again.

Cites from me:

US Treasury website.
12 USC 411.
US VS Rickman (federal reserve notes are lawful money even though they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin via Rickman cashing his check with an open endorsement and using FRNS without a demand for redemption).

US V Ware (US Notes are lawful money and legal tender)

The FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money".

SCOTUS Case [link to supreme.justia.com]

Here is one more CITE for the idiot box that is Js head:
[link to www.google.com]

Where are your cites (non thisiswhatIsaysothere J cites?)

[link to www.jayadkisson.com]

"Jay Adkisson JAY D. ADKISSON

Jay Adkisson is best known as the creator of Quatloos.com and as a book author and popular legal and financial speaker on a variety of topics. Jay is an attorney who practices in the areas of creditor-debtor litigation, asset protection and wealth preservation, and captive insurance companies and insurance/reinsurance litigation. He is also a contributor to Forbes magazine."

Lets guess which poster best fits his online persona.

What could the "D" stand for, hmmmmmm?

Why would I go to prison? For demanding lawful money per 12 USC 411?

What would be the charge? Defendant believes he has the right to demand lawful money per 12 USC 411!!

For pointing out what 12 USC 411 states in black and white?

Total and unequivocal bullshit, and we know it. Unfortunately it appears that the "institution" is busy promulgating this perception, simply because "they" truly do have an agenda, quite unlike Patriotic Americans who simply are unwilling to sacrifice our founding Principles based on love of God and country, and go along with the prevailing NWO agenda, Agenda 21, and the defacto belief that "they" (the ruling class) are somehow entitled to free reign over all the "Peasant's" daily affairs. We are their COLLATERAL, their SECURITY, their CHATTEL, all with the implications of ownership and slave status.

Its like the random sock drawer of conspiracy bullshyte. Where you're just throwing any inane nonsense you can find against the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.

The law simply doesn't recognize that any obligation to pay any debt is passed to the holder of a FRN. Not one case, not one law, not one court ruling.

That's just the sovereign citizen folks quoting *themselves*. Which means absolutely nothing. This is the crux of the theory killing problem with the entire sovereign citizen movement:

The law isn't bound to whatever pseudo-legal imaginary nonsense they want to make up. The sovereign citizen folks don't define one legal term, doesn't establish the jurisdiction of anything, doesn't decide if any given law is valid or invalid. No matter how desperately they try to convince themselves that they do..

...they still don't.

This is why the 'law' in their heads....doesn't match the law in the real world.

US VS Rickman (federal reserve notes are lawful money even though they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin via Rickman cashing his check with an open endorsement and using FRNS without a demand for redemption).

"Via"? There's no 'via'? There's no condition. There's nothing that Rickman did that *made* FRNs into legal money. The courts cited constitutional authority delegated to congress as the basis of FRNs being lawful money.

Not Rickman.

FRNs are recognized as lawful money. Period. The courts recognized no distinction between legal tender and lawful money. Period.

You're inventing all of these exceptions and limitations and caveats to the Rickman ruling that exist only in your head. They don't exist in the actual ruling.

FRNs are recognized as lawful money by the courts. That you disagree is meaningless, as you're nobody. And your imagination doesn't change the law.

Get used to the idea.

Law in the real world? Now THAT IS FUNNY!!!

Not even supreme court justices agree completely on what LAW is!

Look back to cases BEFORE the Civil War and after, similar cases, with completely different rulings, turning back decades of "case law" same goes for before 1919 and 1933. There is NO law made by man that is not constantly changing, being nixed or just outright ignored.

Man made laws only exist in the minds of men, even the definitions of the words used are changed with boring regularity in Federal statutes.

Give me a break, J, you really are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissidence if you think the law is "real".

Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.
THAT IS THE LAW.

Do not like it?

TOUGH SHIT, you ignoring the law does not make it go away.

And once again, J dodges a post with more self citing bullshit.

The FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money".

SCOTUS Case [link to supreme.justia.com]

Wheeler v. Sohmer, the case you just cited...doesn't say “FRN itself which titles it "legal tender" and NOT "lawful money". In fact neither 'Legal tender' nor 'Lawful money' are mentioned once in any capacity in the entire ruling. Just because you post a link to a case doesn’t mean that the case magically becomes whatever you want it to be. Wheeler is a ruling on whether or not promissory notes are taxable under State law.

It doesn’t even address ‘legal tender’ or ‘lawful money’. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're not quoting Wheeler V. Sohmer...you're quoting yourself. And you're nobody. In the Rickman case, the courts made it ridiculously clear that they don't recognize the distinction between legal tender and lawful money.


"We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

US v. Gary Rickman


Exactly opposite of what you claim. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're making up these imaginary distinctions and citing yourself as the courts.

You’re not the courts. You’re not the law. And you citing you means nothing.

Show me where man made LAW exists in the real world, J!

Come on, J, bring your real world to my house and lets see whose law is real!

You are not the courts, You're not the law. "We find no validity in the claim which the defendant draws between lawful money and legal tender?"

The DEFENDANTS CLAIM was that FRNS are not lawful because they could not be directly redeemed for gold and silver coin.

The court did not rule there was NO DIFFERENCE between legal tender and lawful money.

The court ONLY disagreed with the defendants distinction.

Try again, esq.

Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand.
THAT IS THE LAW.

Do not like it?

TOUGH SHIT, you ignoring the law does not make it go away.

And FRNs are lawful money. That you disagree is meaningless as you're nobody. Our system of laws isn't predicated on agreement with your personal opinion.

In a contest between you and the courts on legal definitions, the courts win every time. And the court says, with no ambiguity, that FRNs are lawful money:



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.....


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

US v. Gary Rickman

You say 'uh-uh'. Who cares? You're not a legal authority, nor are you citing one. Its just you..citing you.

And your personal opinion isn't the law. You can't get around that.

And for the record, AGAIN, I never agree with Rickmans claim that lawful money was only redeemable in Gold or silver coin.

Give me the quote or retract your lie.

I know you won't but this is a record and I never claimed that.

I do, however claim there is a difference between legal tender and lawful money and so does every dictionary and source on the subject!

So cite yourself some more, citing yourself about things I have posted MISTER JAY D. ADKISSON.

12 USC 411 is not my opinion it is FEDERAL LAW and it spells out what it spells out, ignoring it will not change that, JAY D. ADKISSON.

Excellent...

"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

YOUR LAW right there. Now tell me again how there is not difference between lawful money and FRNS?

LOL!!

The court did not rule there was NO DIFFERENCE between legal tender and lawful money.

The court ONLY disagreed with the defendants distinction.

Says you. The courts draw no distinction between lawful money and legal tender. And recognize the FRN as both.

Worse for your claims, no court has said that something titled 'legal tender' is no longer 'lawful money'. That's you citing yourself.

And you're nobody.

Oh, you offered us a link to Wheeler V. Sohmer....but that ruling doesn't say that something titled 'legal tender' is no longer 'lawful money'. In fact it makes no mention whatsoever about 'legal tender' and 'lawful money'.

Not one reference.

Which of course you knew. But really hoped we didn't. Your entire argument *relies* on us not checking your sources and not realizing that you're just making it up as you go along.

But I checked, didn't I? You don't know what you're talking about.

The courts have recognized FRNs as lawful money. You disagree. So what? You're not a legal authority. You don't define anything. You don't establish any jurisdiction. You don't tell us which laws are valid and which aren't.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the law. Get used to the idea.

USC 411 is not my opinion it is FEDERAL LAW and it spells out what it spells out, ignoring it will not change that, JAY D. ADKISSON.

And no where does it indicate that FRNs aren't lawful money. It doesn't even define lawful money.

The courts did. And they found that FRNs are lawful money. That you disagree is irrelevant. The courts are authoritative, you aren't.

And 'Jay D. Adkisson'? Should I add that to the growing and bizarre list that your ilk has made for me?

Lets see. So far I've been told that I'm a government shill, a paid shill, an IRS agent, a lawyer, an employee of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a member of the illuminati, an 'elite', a Jew, and everyone from Bill Clinton to Marc Rich to Jay D. Adkison.

You sovereign citizens do love your labels. Though it is amusing to watch you babble on about yet another topic you know nothing about.

And for the record, AGAIN, I never agree with Rickmans claim that lawful money was only redeemable in Gold or silver coin.

Give me the quote or retract your lie.

I've never said a thing about your 'agreement' with Rickman's claim. You're hallucinating.

I've said, clearly and repeatedly, that your agreement with the court ruling is irrelevant. As the courts don't ask you for permission before they rule.

You're nobody.

And you insisting that the FRNs aren't lawful money...while the courts indicating FRNs are lawful money has the same winner ever time.

The courts.

As again, you're nobody. Your personal opinion doesn't make law. Your personal opinion doesn't create precedent. You don't define any legal term. Ever.

But hey, link to Wheeler v. Sohmer again and babble about 'legal tender'. I'm sure it will work this time.

And you're somebody? Your ego will be your downfall.

And you're somebody? Your ego will be your downfall.

Am I citing *my* authority to define legal terms? To determine the validity of a law? To determine jurisdiction?

No. I'm citing the law and the court's authority.

You are citing yourself. And you're nobody. You citing you is legally meaningless. That you believe otherwise is also meaningless. As your beliefs don't change the law.

I'm *still* waiting for more than useless personal opinion that titling something legal tender means its no longer lawful money.

And for any quote of me making reference to your agreement with Rickman's claims. Can I take it that you've abandoned that hallucination?

And this after your ilk's comic blunders on the nature of debt instruments. Where these poor, hapless souls tried to argue that the HOLDER of a promissory note is the one contractually obligated to pay the debtor.

Which, of course, was useless idiocy. The debtor is obligated to pay the holder. You sovereign citizens got it exactly backward.

Holding a FRN doesn't contractual obligate anyone to do anything. And it certainly doesn't obligate them to pay anyone anything.

And thus another series of sovereign citizen conspiracy gibberish is debunked.

Law in the real world? Now THAT IS FUNNY!!!

Dude...its not you. You don't decide any legal matter. You don't decide which laws are are constitutional and which not, you don't decide what is 'lawful money' and what not. You don't decide any matter of jurisdiction for anyone. Not even yourself.

The law and the courts do.


Not even supreme court justices agree completely on what LAW is!


They don't have to 'agree completely' as their threshold for excercising their authority is the same threshhold for we the people excercising ours: the majority.

We've never needed complete consensus on all legal matters to have objective law any more than we've needed 100% of the people to vote for a particular candidate for that candidate to be elected.

We've needed a majority decision by a legally authoritative judicial body.

And we have it.



Look back to cases BEFORE the Civil War and after, similar cases, with completely different rulings, turning back decades of "case law" same goes for before 1919 and 1933. There is NO law made by man that is not constantly changing, being nixed or just outright ignored.


The law certainly changes with time. But your claim that unless there is one, unchanging absolute law than there is no law is as absurd as saying that unless English is as frozen and unchanging as Latin, that it isn't a language.

Of course it is.

Like language, caselaw exists in a particular state at particular moments in time. I can tell you what the law is *today*. The law may be changed by congress tomorrow or next week or next year. State law could be changed by the State. That doesn't mean there is no law. Its the same with precedent. I can tell you what precedent is *today*. But it can and will change with time.

But at every stage these are decisions are made by the judiciary using the authority delegated to them by the people.

Not ever by you, citing yourself. You are simply not delegated the people's authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution. Nor are you delegated the authority to create law. I just checked the constitution to make sure. You're not mentioned.

The people are. But you are not the people.

And before you start babbling about 'God's law', save your breath. You don't speak for God either.


Give me a break, J, you really are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissidence if you think the law is "real".


First off, its cognitive dissonance, not 'cognitive dissidence'. Don't hurt yourself trying to use a term you don't understand. You don't have the slightest clue what you the term means. Its just a generic, catch all pejorative to you that you apply ignorantly.

As you do virtually every legal term you try to use.

You just don't know what you're about.

I know you are a fat ass, ugly nerd who was most likely picked on in grade school and you became an attorney so you could get back at all the cool kids and pretty girls.

The picture on your website explains why you have to go to Canada and pay hookers to blow you.

Keep on doin what you are doing fatty, someday, you won't have to spend all those FRNS alone or with women you have to pay for.

I am out!

[link to www.jayadkisson.com]

just so it does not get lost on this page!

From the page listed above "No attorney of the firm is a legal specialist in any area of practice, and no attorney of the firm has been approved as a legal specialist by any state board of legal specialization or similar body."

You guys have beat this horse to death.

Statism is a dangerous mental illness.