# Lifestyles & Discussion > Freedom Living >  Is there anything more amusing than a 'sovereign citizen'?

## RonPaulFanInGA



----------


## Ronin Truth

Are you sovereign?

----------


## mrsat_98

Speaking from experience that is not how you do it.

----------


## jllundqu

Guy is an idiot.  "Sovereigns" all claim they don't recognize the government, but they are the first to line up for welfare, disability benefits, social security, FHA and USDA loans, etc etc.  Bunch of cry babies if you ask me.

Especially when they start yapping about straw man theory and ucc codes and admiralty law....  they are great scam artists, though!

----------


## ctiger2

Every human on earth is a sovereign being. To those that don't understand this, congrats, you've been successfully brainwashed. 
Sure, there are sovereign idiots as well like the person in the vid. But, there are idiots everywhere.

----------


## acesfull

> 


Any idea where this incident occurred? Any citizen that exercises his/her rights and is not a slave will actually be labeled a "Sovereign Citizen" by the government.

The G will paint all these SC as crazy and violent and anti government. However the same could apply to libertarians and or folks that simply belief in our constitution and common law and that are against tyranny, the G just hasn't found a name for the latter just yet.. 

Not all labeled sovereign citizens are cop killers and thieves just like all cops are not killers of unarmed citizens.. 

My .02

Acesfull

----------


## donnay

> Every human on earth is a sovereign being. To those that don't understand this, congrats, you've been successfully brainwashed. 
> Sure, there are sovereign idiots as well like the person in the vid. But, there are idiots everywhere.


+rep

----------


## Danke

> 


Schadenfreude is not all that uncommon, especially amongst statists.

----------


## The Northbreather

> Every human on earth is a sovereign being. To those that don't understand this, congrats, you've been successfully brainwashed. 
> Sure, there are sovereign idiots as well like the person in the vid. But, there are idiots everywhere.


Yep. Just a bunch of people born on the same rock cruisin through space. 

Some people got the idea that they were better than others and need to control them.

Some of them feel like you are in debt to them for being born on the same rock.

----------


## TheCount

> Every human on earth is a sovereign being.


This is totally unrelated to the sovereign citizen movement.

----------


## mrsat_98

> Guy is an idiot.  "Sovereigns" all claim they don't recognize the government, but they are the first to line up for welfare, disability benefits, social security, FHA and USDA loans, etc etc.  Bunch of cry babies if you ask me.
> 
> Especially when they start yapping about straw man theory and ucc codes and admiralty law....  they are great scam artists, though!





> This is totally unrelated to the sovereign citizen movement.


Uh Oh TheCount is having another Sovereign Movement.

----------


## phill4paul

> This is totally unrelated to the sovereign citizen movement.


  Where can I buy a membership or jacket patch to the 'official' organization?

----------


## presence

> Where can I buy a membership or jacket patch to the 'official' organization?


3 BTC send pm for address.  Patches ship in 48 hours.

----------


## phill4paul

> 3 BTC send pm for address.  Patches ship in 48 hours.


  I only deal in animal pelts or spent shell casings. Can we work a deal?

----------


## TheCount

> Where can I buy a membership or jacket patch to the 'official' organization?


mrsat and devil should be able to help you.  They've pretty well bought into it.

----------


## mrsat_98

> mrsat and devil should be able to help you.  They've pretty well bought into it.


Oh dear, Our comrade is having a movement.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep. Just a bunch of people born on the same rock cruisin through space. 
> 
> Some people got the idea that they were better than others and need to control them.
> 
> Some of them feel like you are in debt to them for being born on the same rock.


If we are just randomly floating atoms randomly floating on a rock through space, why not go for all the gusto you can and tyrannize as many people as you want?

----------


## mrsat_98

> Guy is an idiot.  "Sovereigns" all claim they don't recognize the government, but they are the first to line up for welfare, disability benefits, social security, FHA and USDA loans, etc etc.  Bunch of cry babies if you ask me.
> 
> Especially when they start yapping about straw man theory and ucc codes and admiralty law....  they are great scam artists, though!


I recognize the government for what it is and act accordingly.

----------


## jkr

ISNT $LA\/ERY AWESOME 

F
U

----------


## acesfull

How did the term "sovereign citizen" come about? What does sovereign citizen mean? 


Acesfull

----------


## presence

> How did the term "sovereign citizen" come about? What does sovereign citizen mean?


"Citizen" is an Iroquois concept,  it means "of the people" / "with rights"  as opposed to the term "Subject" which means "of the ruler" / "with privileges".

----------


## Ronin Truth

Yes.

----------


## torchbearer

Is there anything more self-evident?

----------


## acesfull

So since I believe that the G can stick their privileges where the sun doesn't shine and simply leave me alone to exercise my natural God given rights, then I must be a " Sovereign Citizen"...  I always considered myself an old school Constitutionalist with a firm belief in the "Golden Rule"... 

Thanks to the folks that answered my "sovereign citizen" query.

Best regards.

Acesfull

----------


## CPUd

http://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog...Crowell%29.pdf

----------


## acesfull

> http://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog...Crowell%29.pdf


Government propaganda at it finest... 

Do you think the law enforcement community and municipal kangaroo courts admire the believes of "Constitutionalists"? Hell no,
They tend to label all patriots in an evil matter so as to masquerade under color of law, their law, their statutes, their ordinances and anyone that objects to their law, statutes, ordinances, gets a label...   Today if one exercises his/her common law rights one is considered anti-government or a rebel sociopath with no regards to law and order... This is not always the truth..

Standing up for ones rights only make one an " American".. 

My .02

Acesfull

----------


## KCIndy

A "Sovereign" is someone who has ultimate authority over himself.  In other words, he is unowned by anyone or anything.

A "citizen" is usually expected to surrender some rights/freedoms to the "greater authority" of which he is a part, even if said citizen has not agreed to do so.  See "social contract" theory.

Claiming to be a "sovereign citizen" is, to my mind, like claiming to be an "independent slave."

----------


## mrsat_98

Bull $#@!e' a sovereign is someone who has read Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:390 et. seq. and will use it.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## DP714

I agree with the principle of every human being a sovereign but whoever keeps teaching these people about whatever laws/legal code they always cite in these confrontations is doing them a severe injustice. What the law was at some point or what it was intended to be doesn't really matter unless the modern courts and law enforcement agencies recognize it as that. As of right now, they most certainly do not. None of this "sovereign legalese" will help anyone against the modern state (and I do admit that I don't understand what they're talking about at all) and it will just lead to unnecessary suffering for them. If theirs is a more superior and moral understanding of the law than the current state of the law, then hopefully it does prevail in the long run. It will not happen overnight, and asserting it right now will not magically make it happen. Again, I agree with the overall philosophy underlying the "sovereign legalese" and have no objections to her resisting in the manner she did, or even if she took it further in that regard. But idk..

What am I even advocating here? I don't know. I would never tell someone to just bend over to an authority figure enforcing an unjust law or laws that infringe on his/her natural rights, but on the other hand, I hate to see people get hurt and locked up because they foolishly assert a version of law that is so completely foreign to these enforcers and their system. My heart is really torn here. I understand the essence of the sovereign philosophy and agree with it, but damn if I ever try to do something like this. Perhaps they have a courage and conviction superior to mine, at this point in my life anyway.

----------


## mrsat_98

The current regime's offices  are 100% counterfeit or in the  words of Ezekiel 17:12

Say now to the rebellious house, Know you not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and has taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;

----------


## otherone

> A "Sovereign" is someone who has ultimate authority over himself.  In other words, he is unowned by anyone or anything.
> 
> A "citizen" is usually expected to surrender some rights/freedoms to the "greater authority" of which he is a part, even if said citizen has not agreed to do so.  See "social contract" theory.
> 
> Claiming to be a "sovereign citizen" is, to my mind, like claiming to be an "independent slave."


THANK YOU

----------


## otherone

> If we are just randomly floating atoms randomly floating on a rock through space, why not go for all the gusto you can and tyrannize as many people as you want?


Some people aren't $#@!s.

----------


## acesfull

We must learn to never surrender "jurisdiction" to any Municipal kangaroo court.  Whether you call it being a "sovereign citizen" or a Constitutionalists with plenty of common law, case law, to support your claim, never surrender jurisdiction to courts that are not common law courts.

Acesfull

----------


## CPUd



----------


## TheCount

> We must learn to never surrender "jurisdiction" to any Municipal kangaroo court.  Whether you call it being a "sovereign citizen" or a Constitutionalists with plenty of common law, case law, to support your claim, never surrender jurisdiction to courts that are not common law courts.
> 
> Acesfull


Muh flag fringe

----------


## TheCount

> video


Side note:  That's actually pretty cool that they do that via webcam, I presume to avoid having either more judges or forcing people to drive to wherever the judge is.  Seems like it'd be a real money saver.

----------


## Acala

> I agree with the principle of every human being a sovereign but whoever keeps teaching these people about whatever laws/legal code they always cite in these confrontations is doing them a severe injustice. What the law was at some point or what it was intended to be doesn't really matter unless the modern courts and law enforcement agencies recognize it as that. As of right now, they most certainly do not. None of this "sovereign legalese" will help anyone against the modern state (and I do admit that I don't understand what they're talking about at all) and it will just lead to unnecessary suffering for them. If theirs is a more superior and moral understanding of the law than the current state of the law, then hopefully it does prevail in the long run. It will not happen overnight, and asserting it right now will not magically make it happen. Again, I agree with the overall philosophy underlying the "sovereign legalese" and have no objections to her resisting in the manner she did, or even if she took it further in that regard. But idk..
> 
> What am I even advocating here? I don't know. I would never tell someone to just bend over to an authority figure enforcing an unjust law or laws that infringe on his/her natural rights, but on the other hand, I hate to see people get hurt and locked up because they foolishly assert a version of law that is so completely foreign to these enforcers and their system. My heart is really torn here. I understand the essence of the sovereign philosophy and agree with it, but damn if I ever try to do something like this. Perhaps they have a courage and conviction superior to mine, at this point in my life anyway.


Well said.^

Anyone who fights for their freedom from government is on my side of the line.  However, certain people have been hypnotized by legalistic incantations in the belief that they wield some kind of secret power that will fend off government force.  They will not.  Ever.  There is a clear body of procedural and substantive law followed by courts in this country.  Any disputes about it are just skirmishes around the edges.  The bulk of it, including the law of personal jurisdiction, is clear.  The "laws" being pushed by what I call the secret law cult are not within the body of law recognized by the courts in the USA.  There are no magic words or postures or positions or signatures or tricks that will free anyone from the grip of the state.  If there were, the law would be changed instantly and unanimously by the legislature to close the hole.

----------


## TheCount

> However, certain people have been hypnotized by legalistic incantations in the belief that they wield some kind of secret power that will fend off government force.  They will not.  Ever.  There is a clear body of procedural and substantive law followed by courts in this country.  Any disputes about it are just skirmishes around the edges.  The bulk of it, including the law of personal jurisdiction, is clear.  The "laws" being pushed by what I call the secret law cult are not within the body of law recognized by the courts in the USA.  There are no magic words or postures or positions or signatures or tricks that will free anyone from the grip of the state.  If there were, the law would be changed instantly and unanimously by the legislature to close the hole.


In my opinion, it is a cargo cult about the legal process.  They either don't understand it or refuse to understand it, and they're trying to emulate the things that appear to give others power without even a basic understanding of the system.





> Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and  dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills  with wooden or salvaged rifles.The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.
> 
> In a form of sympathetic magic,  many built life-size replicas of aeroplanes out of straw and cut new  military-style landing strips out of the jungle, hoping to attract more  aeroplanes. The cult members thought that the foreigners had some  special connection to the deities and ancestors of the natives, who were  the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.

----------


## mrsat_98

> In my opinion, it is a cargo cult about the legal process.  They either don't understand it or refuse to understand it, and they're trying to emulate the things that appear to give others power without even a basic understanding of the system.


TheCount has been watching to much of America's TV

----------


## kahless

> video


That was far more interesting than any Judge Judy episode.

----------


## TheCount

> TheCount has been watching to much of America's TV




You can prove us all wrong by posting information on the amazing legal victories that sovereign citizens derive from their sekret knowledge.

----------


## mrsat_98

> You can prove us all wrong by posting information on the amazing legal victories that sovereign citizens derive from their sekret knowledge.


https://adask.wordpress.com/category...other-animals/

----------


## TheCount

> https://adask.wordpress.com/category...other-animals/


Your example of legal victory is a guy already serving 10 years in jail who just got convicted again and is pending sentencing for even more time?


What does a loss look like?

----------


## mrsat_98

> Your example of legal victory is a guy already serving 10 years in jail who just got convicted again and is pending sentencing for even more time?


No, but your antics are more amusing than the subject of the thread title.

----------


## Ronin Truth

How about a CONgresscritter searching for his missing soul?

----------


## mrsat_98

> How about a CONgresscritter searching for his missing soul?


Here it is.

[URL="http://scannedretina.com/2015/04/25/the-fourteenth-amendment-hoax-judge-anna-von-reitz-exposes-the-fraudulent-congress/"]http://scannedretina.com/2015/04/25/the-fourteenth-amendment-hoax-judge-anna-von-reitz-exposes-the-fraudulent-congress/[/URL

The Fourteenth Amendment Hoax – Judge Anna von Reitz Exposes the Fraudulent Congress
Posted on April 25, 2015 by arnierosner
Once in a while I take time to reply to especially wrong-headed and misinformed individuals.
In this case, I was replying to a man who was convinced that the Fourteenth Amendment was the best thing since sliced bread and even Biblically sanctioned.

First, let’s begin with some facts about the various “Constitutions” involved. The actual Equity Contract that created the Federal United States is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”. It hasn’t been amended since 1860. It is a tri-lateral international treaty. It doesn’t have a Fourteenth Amendment.

Circa 1868 a Delaware Corporation doing business as the “United States of America (Inc.)”

Voila_Capture 2015-04-12_07-31-31_PM

published its own “constitution”— a corporate charter deceptively named “the Constitution of the United States of America”. It was not only similarly and deceptively named, it adopted the Articles of the actual Constitution as corporate “Articles” and the Amendments as corporate By-laws. This is the “constitution” that contains the 14th Amendment being discussed— an “Amendment” which was simply proclaimed along with several others and which was never ratified by the Several States of the Continental United States, because as corporate By-laws of a private non-profit corporation, no such ratification process was required.

At the time much public discussion centered around the idealistic sales pitch that the proponents presented: the new form of citizenship the 14th Amendment provided for was supposed to be egalitarian, serving to unite everyone under one status, to insure that former slaves enjoyed full protection of the laws, etc. Some famous Abolitionists supported it. In any case, the Members of the “United States Congress” acting secretively as a Board of Directors for the United States of America, Inc., approved it.

And this is where the recent discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment takes off, with my opponent waxing eloquent about its supposed benefits and Biblical authority, and me answering:

“The Fourteenth Amendment may have been embraced with all the good intentions you describe, and yes, most of the public debate at the time it was adopted bears out your interpretation of the intention that most people embraced. I agree. That was the stated goal.

However, as often happens, things got sidetracked and other agendas played out in reality.

MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS — FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO U.S. CONSTITUTION BE DECLARED VOID

Instead of receiving State Citizenship which recognizes Natural Rights, African Americans only received the “United States Citizenship” of the Federal United States and “Civil Rights”, not “Natural Rights”.

When you look up “Civil Rights” you learn that they are “privileges” conferred by Congress and can be taken away by Congress just as fast. You will also figure out sooner or later that the entire “Civil Rights Movement” demanding “Equal Civil Rights” had to have something to be “equal” to.

Equal to What?

Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted the civil rights owed to black Americans to be “equal to” the Natural Rights enjoyed by their white counterparts inhabiting the Continental United States. And enough people got mad enough about it to force the Congress to guarantee it, finally.

But consider this while you are attacking me for standing on the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States and invoking my State Citizenship and its guarantees—- without me demanding that my Natural Rights be honored, there is no standard determining the meaning of “Equal” Civil Rights.

If I lose my claim to Natural Rights, the Congress is set free to reduce all rights owed to all people in both the Continental and Federal United States to the level of slaves in 17th century Haiti.

The further unforeseen (and unannounced) consequence for Federal Citizens was that first the former black slaves and later white “United States Citizens” as well were conscripted and registered as “assets” of the United States of America, Inc., and their labor and other property was “made available” for the “hypothecation of debt”.

Look up the word “hypothecation“.

It’s surreptitious theft using a mechanism akin to co-signing a loan, but in this case, you aren’t necessarily made aware that you are the co-signer. Someone claiming to “represent” you as your agent, offers you and your resources to stand good for a Third Party. In this case, Federal United States Citizens and their property assets were offered as collateral backing the debts of the United States of America, Inc. by the members of Congress.

This is where the process of registering people as human chattel and issuing bonds for sale based on the estimated worth of their lifetime labor — CUSIP bonds– began. The “title” to the freed slaves was seized and flipped from private ownership to public ownership. They became chattel backing the debts of the “government corporation”.

To tidy up this outrage and excuse it as a “private contract” between the victims and the government corporation, the 14th Amendment Public Charitable Trust was established. In exchange for all the money raised by bonds issued against the value of their labor, the “freed” black slaves were enabled to access the “benefits” of the Public Charitable Trust.

This was a deal only bested by the theft of the land from the Native Americans.

The rats claimed that the victims of this fraud “voluntarily” enrolled to receive the “benefits” of the Public Charitable Trust in exchange for “vesting” their assets—their labor, their private property, their intellectual property, everything—-for the benefit of the United States of America, Inc., which was named the beneficiary of their estates.

Sound familiar? It should.

The exact same model was employed to entrap white Americans. Pretending that it was a “government mandate” the United States of America, Inc., — which is merely a private, mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporation — NOT the government—-forced hundreds of millions of Americans to “voluntarily” enroll in Social Security, which they presented as an “insurance program” to take care of people in their old age.

Gradually, over time, the perpetrators changed the sales pitch and the verbiage, until in 2012, they started writing the word “benefits” on Social Security Checks and claiming that the recipients are all Federal welfare recipients, benefiting from the Public Charitable Trust……

Are you even dimly beginning to see the criminality that you have been part of and supporting?

The 14th Amendment didn’t free or ennoble anyone. It was a subtle vehicle for the exact opposite.

Now that I have educated you about that take a close look at the Thirteenth Amendment of the same corporate “Constitution of the United States of America (Inc.)”

Everyone knows that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, right?

Look again.

It didn’t abolish slavery. It made slavery a punishment for crime.

And it left the “Congress” free to come up with whatever fanciful “crimes” it might conceive.

Picking dandelions on a public sidewalk? Life imprisonment, all your labor ceded to benefit the prison facility and the jailors….”

For Profit Prisons – CCA Contracts Keep Prisons Full and Profits Up – A government PPO?

The bottom line? — It is all fraud. All of it.

The whole publication and debate about the adoption of “the Constitution for the United States of America” in the 1860’s was a fraud based on semantic deceit, to make people think that they were adopting a new “Constitution” and a new “citizenship”. When you look into it more deeply, you realize that it wasn’t a citizenship being offered. It was an “enfranchisement” of the estates of living people by a corporation, the effect of which was to create a reverse trust scam in which the corporation pretending to be the lawful government of the Federal United States named itself the beneficiary of the assets of the victims.

The good news is that there is no statute of limitations on fraud and there is no such thing as Fourteenth Amendment “citizenship” and no valid contract between any American State Citizen past or present and the United States of America, Incorporated, nor any of its successors, including the UNITED STATES, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.

Anyone who wants to argue about it, including Barack H. Obama and Ban Ki-Moon, can kindly produce the section of their corporate charters that allows them to “confer” such “citizenship” on anyone. They can also show their corporate charter authority to condone and promote human slavery and peonage via the devices of personage, inland piracy, and press-ganging. They can also try to justify their claims that individuals “voluntarily” enrolled in “Social Security” when millions of witnesses can testify from their own experience that they were told it was a government mandate and that they couldn’t have a job without a Social Security Number—-in other words, they were forced to enroll under conditions of duress and deceit.

These acts of fraud were clearly criminal in their intent and their affect. The perpetrators plundered and abused the public trust and the corporations responsible impersonated the actual government owed the People of the Continental United States for private gain. They did this throughout the former Commonwealth, most of Western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa.

This was all done by misusing corporations— legal fictions created by the Roman Curia and intended to serve good purposes. By Maxim of Law, the Roman Curia is responsible for what it creates. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI was fully informed and began action to correct. Pope Francis has continued the effort, and gave the perpetrators three years beginning July 1, 2013 to come into compliance with their charters.

While outwardly deploring piracy and slavery and human trafficking and peonage and credit fraud and identity theft— private corporations pretending to “represent” lawful governments have promoted all of this and more.

The perpetrators have grown unimaginably wealthy by victimizing the people they are bound by trust indenture, commercial contract, and oath to protect. They have beset their own employers as criminals and as undeclared foreign agents and now hope to start an actual war against the victims, using the victim’s own credit and resources and sons and daughters against them.

We have different answer. It is painfully evident who the real “Paper Terrorists” in the room are, and have long been. We don’t make war with our employees. We fire them and we sue them and we expose them for what they are and what they have done.

As this is written, the perpetrators are acting under 100% individual and commercial liability—though many of them haven’t bothered to read Pope Francis’s First Apostolic Letter. The three year grace period is more than half spent, with precious little evidence of repentance or reform.

Instead, the UNITED STATES, INC. (IMF) went insolvent as of April 15, 2015, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. (FEDERAL RESERVE) is prepared to play the same old tricks again.

In 1933, the United States of America, Inc., declared bankruptcy and falsely claimed that our estates were all chattel assets and Sureties backing its corporate debts. The UNITED STATES, INC. was booted up to provide governmental services during the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Trustee named by the banks, the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, simply accepted any and all expenses the UNITED STATES, INC. presented and charged against our credit and passed the expenses through to us, the presumed Sureties. This provided the Members of Congress and their Banker Bosses unlimited credit on our accounts. They stole our identities and our credit cards and charged them to the hilt like any common Hacker.

This is how we supposedly owe $20 trillion worth of “National Debt”, but it is Odious Debt— debt created by fraud from which the victims did not benefit. The perpetrators of this vast fraud scheme have systematically siphoned off an amount equal to the National Debt – the National Credit.

The UNITED STATES, INC. is now setting up the same fraud again, with the complicity of the UNITED NATIONS, INC. doing business as the brand new version of “FEDERAL RESERVE”—all chartered under United Nations City State auspices. As the UNITED STATES, INC., goes bankrupt, it will claim that all our ESTATES — “individual franchises” it created and operated under our given names styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—are assets belonging to the bankrupt corporation. Once again, the banks and their self-appointed “Trustees” — the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico—are standing by to receive our assets as Securities, only this time for the debts of the UNITED STATES, INC. Once again, the perpetrators have set up bogus incorporated “franchises” named after us, only now they are being defined as public transmitting utilities and the NAMES are styled like this: JOHN Q. PUBLIC.

The UN’s new version of “FEDERAL RESERVE” doing business as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (INC.) is standing by to provide the government services owed by the Federal United States to the Continental United States. The UNITED STATES, INC. is already occupying the role of the bankrupt pass through entity we are supposedly obligated to “stand good for”. And we are being set up as marks again, by these international criminals.

Is it time to wake up?

Is it time to learn your own history?

Is it time to send this information to the Country Boards, the “State of State” Legislatures, the whole rotten stinking crowd in “Washington, DC” and the rest of the world as well?

Let’s make it perfectly clear— the rats in Washington, DC and London are trustees acting in Breach of Trust, employees in breach of their commercial contract, and the Members of Congress do not represent the Continental United States nor its people. They have not filled their elected offices as Deputies of the Continental United States, so they have no public office related to us. Except for actual services rendered according to the original Equity Contract, we don’t owe the Federal United States anything, nor do we stand as Sureties for the debts of the bankrupt UNITED STATES, INC.

The people you have paid to protect you have failed you. It is not a coincidence that America has been kept constantly embroiled in one war after another for 222 out of 239 years of existence. It is not an accident that our industries never retooled after World War II, not is it a mistake that all our Top Ten Export Products benefit when the world is at war. War is big business and until we make it unprofitable, there will always be those perpetuating it.

The police and the “security agencies” like the FBI and CIA and DHS and NSA and BATF have all failed you, too, because they have been purposefully misdirected from the top. By whom? By the banking cartels that literally own and operate the “governmental services corporations” that have been masquerading as your lawful government—banks operating as criminal syndicates that have hired commercial mercenaries to protect themselves with your tax money, your credit, and your labor.

And last but not least, the men and women posing as your “representatives” have failed you, too, via a combination of stupidity, gullibility, ignorance, greed, corruption, immorality, and naiveté. Some of them know very well what they are doing. Most do not. It’s up to you to tell them. It’s up to you to hold them accountable, from the lowliest clerk to the highest political offices. They have not filled the offices you elected them to fill. They have filled similarly named private corporate offices instead.

You are civilian inhabitants of the Continental United States, guaranteed the peaceful possession of the actual States on the land, guaranteed a Republic, guaranteed your Natural Rights, including your property rights. Yet these con men have donned costumes— judge’s robes and police uniforms, and pretended to be your “representatives”— and have abused you and abused your credit and stolen you blind.

It’s time for this to end.

Make it so. Start by explaining this situation to your family and friends. Then take this little run down and a copy of the Public Order issued April 2, 2015 and the Notice to Law Enforcement down to your local police stations and mayors and county boards and borough assemblies and “State” legislatures and “Governors”.

Public Notice: It is in your hands America; The Continental American Inhabitant!
To Print Locally and Distribute – Before things get out of hand
So what is it about the 14th Amendment?
US Corp (of which obama is CEO) Is In Worse Fiscal Condition Than Greece. Continental Americans not necessarily involved!
Send copies to “your” Congressional Delegation, which doesn’t represent you to the corporation, but rather, represents the corporation to you. Send copies to the Queen of England, who is principally responsible for this mess because all this criminality is happening in her sphere of responsibility— the international Jurisdiction of the Sea. Tell Mr. Obama. Tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tell your local bankers. Tell the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Judges and Bar Association Members.

Give them no plausible deniability for their criminality, and once they have been presented with the information, insist that they take appropriate action—either to stop the fraud once and for all, or be recognized as perpetrators and accomplices to crime.

----------


## TheCount

All I see is word salad with no substance.  I've read approximately the same thing on dozens of sovcit and generic conspiracy theory blogs over the last decade.


Again, if it's true, then there must be cases where people have used their supr sekret legal knowledge to obtain money/freedom/whatever.  Eagerly awaiting those links.

----------


## mrsat_98

> All I see is word salad with no substance.  I've read approximately the same thing on dozens of sovcit and generic conspiracy theory blogs over the last decade.
> 
> 
> Again, if it's true, then there must be cases where people have used their supr sekret legal knowledge to obtain money/freedom/whatever.  Eagerly awaiting those links.


The previous post was not directed to you but presented as an example of where a congress critters soul may be. In the mean time I invite you to suck on this.

https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...utor-grimaced/

https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/...her-animals-1/

https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/...nimals-laws-1/

----------


## Ronin Truth

Not in Georgia.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> 


This was very interesting to watch.  I once thought that the "Sovereign Citizen" way was the "key" but soon discarded it.  Logic and ANY law from anywhere on the planet (pretty much) dictates that any contract has a few requirements to be valid.  Contracts have to have a meeting of the minds, an offer and acceptance, must be fully disclosed and be entered into by people of sound mind and of "legal" age...

Don't see any of these requirements met in this "contract" that is the all-caps name "corporation".  Besides, I have a certified photo copy of MY birth certificate that was hand typed in 1952 and they typed my name with proper capitalization... So I guess there's NO corp under my name, huh??

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

I remember a former roommate of mine was caught sleeping in his car and charged with a misdemeanor. Instead of just making the system work for him, he argued that he was a sovereign citizen, refused to cooperate with the court and gave them no choice but to come down on him. He skipped bail and is still a fugitive. There's a time to be idealistic, and there's a time to just go with the $#@!ing flow.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I've read approximately the same thing on dozens of sovcit and generic conspiracy theory blogs over the last decade.


Is that right?  The last decade?  Why are you reading "dozens" of such sites?  

You are an anti-liberty progressive trying to fly under the radar on this site.  You often make posts attempting to poke fun at so-called "conspiracies."  Is that what you do on those other sites?  And TEN years.  Really?  Is that your hobby, or is that part of your job too?

----------


## TheCount

> The previous post was not directed to you but presented as an example of where a congress critters soul may be. In the mean time I invite you to suck on this.
> 
> https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...utor-grimaced/
> 
> https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/...her-animals-1/
> 
> https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/...nimals-laws-1/



Again, unintelligible word salad.  How did his sovcit magic words work out for him in court?  Not super great evidently, and he was deported back to Canada.

----------


## mrsat_98

So an unrelated event that happened how many years ago is suddenly relevant to this on going battle over an entirely different subject matter. You are funny.

----------


## acesfull

> I remember a former roommate of mine was caught sleeping in his car and charged with a misdemeanor. Instead of just making the system work for him, he argued that he was a sovereign citizen, refused to cooperate with the court and gave them no choice but to come down on him. He skipped bail and is still a fugitive. There's a time to be idealistic, and there's a time to just go with the $#@!ing flow.


By going with the flow you mean be a sheep and take it in the rectum... Sleeping in ones vehicle and not obstructing traffic or creating a safety issue should not be a " misdemeanor"....  
My .02

----------


## acesfull

> So an unrelated event that happened how many years ago is suddenly relevant to this on going battle over an entirely different subject matter. You are funny.


+1 REP

----------


## TheCount

> So an unrelated event that happened how many years ago is suddenly relevant to this on going battle over an entirely different subject matter. You are funny.


Since you're having trouble reading, he was deported only six months ago.  Tuesday, October 7, 2014.

----------


## mrsat_98

Duh,for an unrelated event that happened in 1977. It appears the only one who is having trouble reading is the count. Al has not been approached in 10 or so years and the best the system could muster was have this virtually unrelated nitwit deported due unrelated events or totally unrelated charges. Bear in mind this same issue is up for trial next month with Louis Daniel Smith and project Green Life.  What does this unrelated idiot have to do with it he is obviously not even a Sovereign Citizen with a declared status of resident alien.

You are about a first class nit wit and that doesn't even make a competent troll.

----------


## TheCount

> Duh,for an unrelated event that happened in 1977.


This is after he's spent three separate stints in jails since the time of your post.


Also, as a Natural Born Christian Man of Flesh and Blood, why didn't he have a magickal sovcit scroll of legal protection against deportation?  Did he mispronounce the sekret incantation?  Did he write his name on the documents in an improper format or at an incorrect angle?  Maybe he forgot to copyright his own name.

----------


## phill4paul

Statists. So amusing and joke worthy they have become far more deadly than any S.C.

  Threat to life from a S.C. =  None.

 Threat to life from statists = 100%.

----------


## mrsat_98

> This is after he's spent three separate stints in jails since the time of your post.
> 
> 
> Also, as a Natural Born Christian Man of Flesh and Blood, why didn't he have a magickal sovcit scroll of legal protection against deportation?  Did he mispronounce the sekret incantation?  Did he write his name on the documents in an improper format or at an incorrect angle?  Maybe he forgot to copyright his own name.


My last post was an hour ago my first post was what yesterday. It impossible for anyone to to spend three stints in jails since my   post and He has little to nothing to do with with the subject matter other than to be arrested three times for three drug charges that allegedly didn't stick due to sekret nowledge imparted on him by the actual alleged Soverign Citizen.. 

I give up, masta' you are absolutely more entertaining than a Sovereign Citizen. Mr. The Count Sir.

----------


## HVACTech

> He has little to nothing to do with with the subject matter other than to be arrested three times for three drug charges that didn't stick.


"troll" hunting? 

I might need to discuss that with you... this one is a lightweight.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> This was very interesting to watch.  I once thought that the "Sovereign Citizen" way was the "key" but soon discarded it.  Logic and ANY law from anywhere on the planet (pretty much) dictates that any contract has a few requirements to be valid.  Contracts have to have a meeting of the minds, an offer and acceptance, must be fully disclosed and be entered into by people of sound mind and of "legal" age...
> 
> Don't see any of these requirements met in this "contract" that is the all-caps name "corporation".  Besides, I have a certified photo copy of MY birth certificate that was hand typed in 1952 and they typed my name with proper capitalization... So I guess there's NO corp under my name, huh??


Since the "believers" in this "sovereign citizen" idea seem to be ignoring what I've pointed out above, I'm bumping it for relevance.  All "believers", please explain how ANY "contract" can be valid without meeting the above criteria...

----------


## TheCount



----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> 




Speaking of shills.  Anyone notice TheCount has the title of "supporting member" on his profile?  He has the gall to blatantly violate forum guidelines while shilling with impunity.

I seriously recommend that he is either banished from this forum or neg repped to red bar so that he can be identified for his true purpose here.  I am not a fan of banning people, so you know where I stand.

----------


## jj-

> *Is there anything more amusing than a 'sovereign citizen'?*


Is there anything hotter than Dana Loesch?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Speaking of shills.  Anyone notice TheCount has the title of "supporting member" on his profile?  He has the gall to blatantly violate forum guidelines while shilling with impunity.
> 
> I seriously recommend that he is either banished from this forum or neg repped to red bar so that he can be identified for his true purpose here.  I am not a fan of banning people, so you know where I stand.


TheCount was merely making the point that there's nothing but the sound of crickets from the "sovereign" crowd on how a "contract" can be valid when none of the requirements for a valid contract have been met...

----------


## osan

> 


Is there a point here?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Is there a point here?


Well, the point I've made over and over and never got a straight answer to is this... How can a contract be valid that does not meet the legal requirements of a contract??  (meeting of the minds, exchange, full disclosure, competent actors....)

----------


## mrsat_98

> Well, the point I've made over and over and never got a straight answer to is this... How can a contract be valid that does not meet the legal requirements of a contract??  (meeting of the minds, exchange, full disclosure, competent actors....)


If no one objects.

----------


## osan

> Well, the point I've made over and over and never got a straight answer to is this... How can a contract be valid that does not meet the legal requirements of a contract??  (meeting of the minds, exchange, full disclosure, competent actors....)


All contracts are valid.  If any of the six elements of an agreement is absent, it is not a contract.  Let us review the elements:



OfferAcceptanceCapacityIntentConsiderationLawfulness

An offer must be made.  

The offer must be accepted.  

There must, on the part of all parties to the agreement, exist the capacity (refers to mental competence, as well as the material ability to fulfill the stipulations of the agreement) to enter into the contact.

There must exist the explicit intent to enter into a contractual relationship.

All parties must receive consideration.  Therefore, you and I cannot contract for me to give you my car because only you would be in receipt of consideration.  We can, however, contract to sell you my car for, say, $5K.  There is, however, the notion of equality where consideration is concerned.  For example, if we contract to sell you my car for $1, while technically I have received consideration in the exchange, it can be argued that because the considerations were so lopsided in terms of "inherent" (actually really "perceived") value, that no contract in fact exists.  So when I think I've lucked out with the old dowager who has in writing agreed to bequeath to me her $100MM estate in exchange for a little of the old "in-out", her previous heirs who are all blood relatives would likely have legs in a civil action contesting whether a contract actually existed based on what they would no doubt claim was the grossly lop-sided considerations in question.  Naturally, I would claim that a few rolls in the hay with me is an experience so close to God Himself that I was actually the one who came up short on the deal - and that would be the unvarnished truth of it.  However, barring my "doing" every member of the 12-woman jury (sorry, not going there with men, not even for that much cash), chances are that the plaintiffs would prevail, not to mention the additional claims of diminished or nonexistent capacity... after all, only a crazy woman would give up all that in exchange for the thrill of a lifetime.

The agreement must be lawful in whole and all its parts.  I cannot contract with you to knock your wife off because murder is unlawful.

So, to finally answer your question: no.  Plain and simple.  That is why the notion of the "social contract" is pure idiocy so far beneath contempt that anyone attempting to press that issue in some materially effective manner merits nothing better than to be beaten rightly with iron bars.  The very notion of it is obscenity itself.  Holding one to the stipulations of a contract that can in no meaningful way be demonstrated to exist is a high crime that is, IMO,  meriting a death sentence because it is literal enslavement through the kidnapping of one's sovereignty.  It is treason against the sacred rights of the Individual and I daresay an affront to God's endlessly apparent command as made manifest in the scheme of things.  It is one of the saddest things to which I have ever borne witness.

----------


## Danke

One is either a Sovereign or a Citizen, not both.

----------


## mrsat_98

> One is either a Sovereign or a Citizen, not both.


Bear in mind this thread got started on account of a youtube video which is almost as good a source as the local newspaper but not quite as expensive.

----------


## osan

> Claiming to be a "sovereign citizen" is, to my mind, like claiming to be an "independent slave."





> One is either a Sovereign or a Citizen, not both.


These points are arguable.  We need to go back to the words, to start off.

Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language gives the following:

                                                CITIZEN, sit'-e-zn. 103. n. s. [civis, Lat.] A free-man of a city. Raleigh. A townsman; not a gentleman. Shakspeare. An inhabitant. 

These definitions from ca. 1785 immediately raise the question of semantic drift or, possibly, the redefinition of the term as legal jargon.  The latter is particularly dangerous.


Oxford etymological dictionary:
citizen (n.) early 14c., "inhabitant of a city," from Anglo-French citezein (spelling subsequently altered, probably by influence of denizen), from Old French citeien "city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen" (12c., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian). Replaced Old English burhsittend and ceasterware. Sense of "inhabitant of a country" is late 14c. Citizen's arrest recorded from 1941; citizen's band (radio) from 1947. Citizen of the world (late 15c.) translates Greek kosmopolites.
As is readily apparent, these definitions are basically identical.  The current use in courtrooms, therefore, appears to be that of legal jargon, in which case almost anything goes.  But let us not guess.  The Fourth Edition of Black's Law:

*CITIZEN*. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person underits constitution and government, and subject tothe corresponding duties. "Citizens" are members of community inspired to common goal, who,in associated relations, submit themselves to rulesof conduct for the promotion of general welfareand conservation of individual as well as collective rights. In re McIntosh, D.C.Wash., 12 F.Supp. 177.


                    The term appears to have been used in the Roman gov-ernment to designate a person who had the freedom of thecity, and the right to exercise all political and civil priv-ileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, apartial citizenship, including civil, but not political rights.Complete citizenshi p embraced both. Thomasson v. State,15 Ind. 451; 17 L.Q.Rev. 270; 1 Sel.Essays in Anglo-Amer.L.H. 578.
                    A member of a nation or body politic of the sovereignstate or political society who owes allegiance, Luria v. U.S., 34 S.Ct. 10, 19, 231 U.S. 9, 58 L.Ed. 101; U. S. v. Polzin,D.C.Md., 48 F.Supp. 476, 479.


                    A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges.Cooley, Const.Lim. 77. One of the sovereign people. Aconstituent member of the sovereignty synonymous withthe people. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.


*In American Law*


                    One who, under the constitution and laws of theUnited States, or of a particular state, is a mem-ber of the political community, owing allegianceand being entitled to the enjoyment of full civilrights. Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 331; Minor v.Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. 
And finally, Bouvier's, 3rd edition, 1914:


*CITIZEN*, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.


2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.

3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.


4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; vide 3 Story's Const. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.

I believe it is quite clear that the legal jargon presents clear perils in that there exists an explicit consent to waive certain rights in obligation to abide by rules that may or may not prove just and rational.

And so, Constitutionally speaking, were the authors writing in the clear voice, or that of the obfuscating lawyer?

Perhaps the deeper point here is that any given interpretation or POV is open to debate precisely because of the manifold definitions of terms such as "citizen" and the apparent fact that both legislators and the courts are perhaps intentionally maintaining the latency of the precise meanings in the usage of such terms.

----------


## Danke

Yy


> These points are arguable.  We need to go back to the words, to start off.
> 
> Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language gives the following:
> 
>                                                 CITIZEN, sit'-e-zn. 103. n. s. [civis, Lat.] A free-man of a city. Raleigh. A townsman; not a gentleman. Shakspeare. An inhabitant. 
> 
> These definitions from ca. 1785 immediately raise the question of semantic drift or, possibly, the redefinition of the term as legal jargon.  The latter is particularly dangerous.
> 
> 
> ...


I think that answered the question.  As a King or Queen, one cannot be a Sovereign and be a Citizen

----------


## CPUd

People who use the term really don't care if it's a misnomer, because it is used as a label and not to actually describe what these people are.  A Canadian judge attempts a better fitting name, "OPCA litigants":




> [1]               This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
> 
> 
> [2]               Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.
> 
> 
> [3]               One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...12abqb571.html

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So when I think I've lucked out with the old dowager who has in writing agreed to bequeath to me her $100MM estate in exchange for a little of the old "in-out", her previous heirs who are all blood relatives would likely have legs in a civil action contesting whether a contract actually existed based on what they would no doubt claim was the grossly lop-sided considerations in question.  Naturally, I would claim that a few rolls in the hay with me is an experience so close to God Himself that I was actually the one who came up short on the deal - and that would be the unvarnished truth of it.  However, barring my "doing" every member of the 12-woman jury (sorry, not going there with men, not even for that much cash), chances are that the plaintiffs would prevail, not to mention the additional claims of diminished or nonexistent capacity... after all, only a crazy woman would give up all that in exchange for the thrill of a lifetime.




Wut the fuq?!  LOL.

----------


## osan

> Yy
> 
> I think that answered the question.  As a King or Queen, one cannot be a Sovereign and be a Citizen


No sir - that was my precise point.  It remains ever so vague.  It is clear to YOU - and I may even share your view - but others may take it otherwise.  There is way too much wiggle room.  What, for example, are these "common goals" of which speak is made?  For my coin, if the reference is to the principles of proper human relations, then I would agree.  Anything less than that - anything less fundamental - and I would have to reject.  The only common goals that exist for me is the recognition of and respect for the rights that all free men share.  A free man is a non-criminal, and as such cannot be touched by the will of others against his free pleasure.  So long as he remains free, there is no moral instrument by which another may rightly deny, limit, disparage, diminish, or otherwise violate his just claims, choices, and prerogatives.  To do so constitutes criminal action in some form and degree, thereby altering the status of the violator to that of a criminal, in response to which the one violated is then entitled to act in defense of his rights.  That is proper normative Law and not the arbitrary products of dangerously ignorant and/or corrupt men who convene under color of authority as "legislators" to declare otherwise rightful acts as "crimes".

We again see how language and its ignorant abuse or intentional misuse produces results that pose very real and imminent dangers not only to the rights of men, but to their very lives in this time of police and courts running wildly amok as packs of wolves across the face of the planet as the products of the unbridled fecundity of the Four Horsemen.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> All contracts are valid.  If any of the six elements of an agreement is absent, it is not a contract.  Let us review the elements:
> 
> 
> 
> OfferAcceptanceCapacityIntentConsiderationLawfulness 
> 
> An offer must be made.  
> 
> The offer must be accepted.  
> ...


Bingo...

----------


## TheTexan

How many sovereign citizens does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None, because they can prove through hundreds of official looking documents that the light bulb is already lit

----------


## osan

> People who use the term really don't care if it's a misnomer, because it is used as a label and not to actually describe what these people are.  A Canadian judge attempts _a better fitting name,_ "OPCA litigants":


I must admit my confusion here as to your meaning. Better fitting from the judge's narrow and possibly conflicting perspective, or in a broader and therefore more absolute sense?  IOW, are you saying this is either the ignorant or intentionally flawed opinion, or that which presents the superior truth?

In the portion you quote, I cannot help but notice how the judge fails to make his case with anything better than blind assertions.  To wit:




> [1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of *vexatious* litigant. 
> 
> *Note the unnecessary editorializing, calling for a conclusion well prior to having established his case.  This reeks of a hidden agenda... or in this case perhaps not so hidden.*
> 
> As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. 
> 
> *Here, he writes validly and with sound reason using plain descriptions that are not assessing value.*
> 
> In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized _Pseudolegal_ Commercial Argument litigants [OPCA litigants], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by gurus (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
> ...


I have scanned the case and all I seem to find is rambling, unsupported assertions of the perfidies of these so-called "OPCA" sorts.  This case file also illustrates another hazard: just get a load of the endless cites.  Who in hell is going to read all that tripe, not to mention all the cites cited in each source.  To assume that the chain of reasoning back to the ancient sources is unbroken in its validity demonstrates the horrific flaw and danger of case law as commonly practiced.  Yet another reason why the entrenched systems are inherently dangerous to the natural rights of men.  Anything less than putting them to unequivocal ends threatens one and all.

----------


## CPUd

> I must admit my confusion here as to your meaning. Better fitting from the judge's narrow and possibly conflicting perspective, or in a broader and therefore more absolute sense?  IOW, are you saying this is either the ignorant or intentionally flawed opinion, or that which presents the superior truth?
> 
> In the portion you quote, I cannot help but notice how the judge fails to make his case with anything better than blind assertions.  To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> I have scanned the case and all I seem to find is rambling, unsupported assertions of the perfidies of these so-called "OPCA" sorts.  This case file also illustrates another hazard: just get a load of the endless cites.  Who in hell is going to read all that tripe, not to mention all the cites cited in each source.  To assume that the chain of reasoning back to the ancient sources is unbroken in its validity demonstrates the horrific flaw and danger of case law as commonly practiced.  Yet another reason why the entrenched systems are inherently dangerous to the natural rights of men.  Anything less than putting them to unequivocal ends threatens one and all.



It's been a couple years since I read the whole thing, but a few notes:

The document has gotten mixed reviews from the legal community, generally because they feel his style of writing is unprofessional, and could have been done without being insulting.  I've also seen criticism that a court case is not the appropriate venue for this material.  Here is one critical review of the document:http://ablawg.ca/2012/10/30/the-orga...litigant-case/

It has also been used in recent decisions, so his intended effect is being realized in the Canadian courts.

I don't have a problem with the assertions he makes in the introduction, as I am reading with the expectation he will expand on those in the following pages.  The way it is organized afterward, he gives an overview of history and organization (or lack thereof) of various groups, uses specific examples of things he has seen in court, the next section he outlines why Mr. Meads thought it was significant (he often backreferences himself), then he goes into case citations where the same or similar thing was tried and failed.  There was once a PDF version out there that had hyperlinks to specific paragraphs he backreferenced.  It was easier to follow, but that page is now 404.

"vexatious litigant" is a term that apparently has significance in their court system, part of what the judge wants to do is have "OPCA litigants" included as a sub-classification; not sure if there is a statute, but here is a 2005 discussion paper that calls for one: http://www.lawreform.ns.ca/Downloads...Litigtaion.pdf

"Reasons" refers to the document itself.

----------


## dude58677

> I agree with the principle of every human being a sovereign but whoever keeps teaching these people about whatever laws/legal code they always cite in these confrontations is doing them a severe injustice. What the law was at some point or what it was intended to be doesn't really matter unless the modern courts and law enforcement agencies recognize it as that. As of right now, they most certainly do not. None of this "sovereign legalese" will help anyone against the modern state (and I do admit that I don't understand what they're talking about at all) and it will just lead to unnecessary suffering for them. If theirs is a more superior and moral understanding of the law than the current state of the law, then hopefully it does prevail in the long run. It will not happen overnight, and asserting it right now will not magically make it happen. Again, I agree with the overall philosophy underlying the "sovereign legalese" and have no objections to her resisting in the manner she did, or even if she took it further in that regard. But idk..
> 
> What am I even advocating here? I don't know. I would never tell someone to just bend over to an authority figure enforcing an unjust law or laws that infringe on his/her natural rights, but on the other hand, I hate to see people get hurt and locked up because they foolishly assert a version of law that is so completely foreign to these enforcers and their system. My heart is really torn here. I understand the essence of the sovereign philosophy and agree with it, but damn if I ever try to do something like this. Perhaps they have a courage and conviction superior to mine, at this point in my life anyway.


That is why the Oathkeepers exist and they won't come unless you call them to protect you. They are made up of mostly former marines, U.S. Paratroopers, and cops. Their mission is to disobey unconstitutional orders and to protect anyone who is being violated by the government. Has over 30,000 members and was founded by a Ron Paul supporter.

----------

