"Sovereign Citizen" is an Oxymoron

a reply to: TheValeyard

If you officially revoke your citizenship and continue to live here, you will be considered an illegal alien.

And then have to seek asylum as a stateless citizen. It can oly end up it hallarity.

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
a reply to: tanstaafl
The subject of this thread isn't about sovereign citizens more than its about reality vs imaginary,

You mean like the difference between a flesh and blood human being and a legal fiction called a corporation?

BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU ARE SOVEREIGN, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTION!

I don't have to answer to it. It has nothing to do with me personally. It is a list of delegated governmental powers and prohibitions on government actors.

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

If you officially revoke your citizenship and continue to live here, you will be considered an illegal alien.
Also, again, an actual sovereign has authority recognized by others.
You are only sovereign insofar as you can enforce and defend your will.
Just because you WANT something to be so or think it should be so, doesn't make it so.

Are native American tribes considered illegal aliens?

-------

ETA: I watched a recent police shooting video (linked: www.documentingreality.com...) and I think we can make some clear observations. This man, claiming the sovereign citizen argument already fulfilled a self-defeating approach by citing historical precedent in law. So he admits through those citings that he is bound under those laws and thus operating as a "CITIZEN" rather than a "CIVILIAN". Citizens are bound by the agreement they've accepted, the constitution and all the laws that come there-after as outlined in the constitution, the legislative processes. That's how "government" gets jurisdiction over us. Civilians are not because no one has jurisdiction over a naturally created human.

You COULD, in theory, claim your sovereignty without first renouncing your citizenship. But that is also self defeating because once you agree to play the game, you need to make it known that you do not adhere to it anymore or there is reasonable presumption you're still operating under the guise of a "citizen", which is not sovereign.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
a reply to: tanstaafl
The subject of this thread isn't about sovereign citizens more than its about reality vs imaginary,

You mean like the difference between a flesh and blood human being and a legal fiction called a corporation?

Yes, but you can remove the word "corporation" and change it to anything else you like, "government" "organization" "group" "corporation".

originally posted by: tanstaafl

BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU ARE SOVEREIGN, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTION!

I don't have to answer to it. It has nothing to do with me personally. It is a list of delegated governmental powers and prohibitions on government actors.

Hear #ing hear. Now we're talking and in agreeance. I always said the constitution is literally a piece of paper that tells you what your limitations are in a game. The Declaration of Independence on the otherhand, is one of the most riveting documents ever made. A *LOT* of people gloss over the words of our Declaration of Independence without letting them fully digest in their brains. "Endowed, by their creator." the truest words ever spoken.

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
a reply to: tanstaafl
Yes, but you can remove the word "corporation" and change it to anything else you like, "government" "organization" "group" "corporation".

Agreed...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Hear #ing hear. Now we're talking and in agreeance. I always said the constitution is literally a piece of paper that tells you what your limitations are in a game. The Declaration of Independence on the otherhand, is one of the most riveting documents ever made. A *LOT* of people gloss over the words of our Declaration of Independence without letting them fully digest in their brains. "Endowed, by their creator." the truest words ever spoken.

Agreed again...

I will add some of my own understanding on this argument.
Sovereign citizen can have multiple meanings legally because the word citizen and person can be defined by the legal document it is used within.

It's original intent, sovereign without subjects, comes from the ideals expressed from the Magne Carte.
But when you consider the last 150 years and the emergence of the USA Inc. from the Organic Act you see the same words used but with the corporate aspect attached.
There were agreements and treaties in 1872 that agreed to the exemptions and arbitration but mostly to the creditors favor which the discussions pertained to.

We lost the original Constitutional liberties for that time period.

But now that the corporation is dissolved worldwide it looks like our actual sovereignty is returning and our Constutional liberties.
But to be sovereign also brings responsibility and accountability.

The corporate structure certainly greased the supply chains and things like eating got fairly easy for long enough to make us complacent.

The present food inflation combined with the soon happening severe rise in food is actually a good thing.
Anti-sovereign behavior and example of complacency:
All the trees and shrubs are architectural in nature.
None of them planted for food.
As a starter every elementary school yard should have trees that provide food for hungry children.
And a garden too.

That's not sovereign mentality and void of accountability.
It is....
Slave mentality.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
I will add some of my own understanding on this argument.
Sovereign citizen can have multiple meanings legally because the word citizen and person can be defined by the legal document it is used within.

It's original intent, sovereign without subjects, comes from the ideals expressed from the Magne Carte.
But when you consider the last 150 years and the emergence of the USA Inc. from the Organic Act you see the same words used but with the corporate aspect attached.
There were agreements and treaties in 1872 that agreed to the exemptions and arbitration but mostly to the creditors favor which the discussions pertained to.

We lost the original Constitutional liberties for that time period.

But now that the corporation is dissolved worldwide it looks like our actual sovereignty is returning and our Constutional liberties.
But to be sovereign also brings responsibility and accountability.

The corporate structure certainly greased the supply chains and things like eating got fairly easy for long enough to make us complacent.

The present food inflation combined with the soon happening severe rise in food is actually a good thing.
Anti-sovereign behavior and example of complacency:
All the trees and shrubs are architectural in nature.
None of them planted for food.
As a starter every elementary school yard should have trees that provide food for hungry children.
And a garden too.

What do you think about the East India Trading Company?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
That's not sovereign mentality and void of accountability.
It is....
Slave mentality.

Yepp. This.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
We have been operating under the British and Duth East India Trading Company and the admiralty laws that govern the laws of the sea for commerce since the Act of England of 1871 when we formed USA INC.

The I.C.C.
They were getting ready to foreclose on us as a result of our 3rd bankruptcy.

But then came Trump and his 70 Generals and Admirals that talked him into running and supported him.
Trump the bankruptcy expert used their laws, plans and playbook against them and legally confiscated their assets from EO 13818 and EO 13848.

I highly suspect :Russel-Jay :Gould is who he claims he is.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
Imagine if millions of citizens without a criminal record withdraw their consent to be governed by criminals...
Who would be under arrest?

The millions of citizens would be arrested.

It would take a majority of americans on board before it would force the media to take it seriously.
Even then, I'd wager they'd lie about the numbers.