FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement

Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world.
...
Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.

This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by mothershipzeta]


Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by GAOTU789]

hmmmmmmmmmm

the terrorist definition grows


[edit on 4/14/2010 by indigothefish]

Originally posted by indigothefish
hmmmmmmmmmm
the terrorist definition grows

dog gone skippy

why dont they just say

ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME
IS A TERRORIST !!!

and be done with it.
He!! they change this definition
more often than I change underwear.

we're all terrorists

All you have to do now is disagree with authority to be considered a terrorist. This heats me up just about more than anything. I guess im a terrorist. (just being sarcastic) Damn the people in control and that want to keep us in slavery. We must never let them shut us up by threats of jail, or worse. If i must be taken away because i believe in the truth, so be it.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Enigami]

The "sovereign citizens" are a great one because by and large they just want to be left alone. They dont go around shouting about killing politicians or blowing things up or even arming themselves and parading around.

They just want to be left alone.

The worst they tend to do is not pay their taxes.

So why does that garner the FBI's attention?

Those lunatic fringe sovereigns wanting to be left alone!! Let's torch their buildings and shoot their children like we did in Idaho and Texas.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The "sovereign citizens" are a great one because by and large they just want to be left alone. They dont go around shouting about killing politicians or blowing things up or even arming themselves and parading around.

They just want to be left alone.

Not always.

In April 1992, an angry resident of Sanilac County, Michigan, wrote a letter to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources stating he was no longer a "citizen of the corrupt political corporate State of Michigan and the United States of America" and was answerable only to the "Common Laws." He therefore expressly revoked his signature on any hunting or fishing licenses, which he viewed as contracts that fraudulently bound him to the illegitimate government of Michigan.

That obscure Michigan hunter would, three years later, become known to the entire world. He was Terry Nichols, friend and accomplice of Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh. Nichols subscribed to an unusual right-wing anti-government ideology whose adherents have in recent years increasingly plagued public officials, law enforcement officers and private citizens with a variety of tactics designed to attack the government and other forms of authority. Its members call themselves, variously, constitutionalists, freemen, preamble citizens, common law citizens and non-foreign/non-resident aliens (Nichols used several of these), but most commonly refer to themselves as "sovereign citizens."

Members of the sovereign citizen movement engage in a variety of seemingly bizarre activities. Nichols, for instance, several times repudiated his allegiance to federal and state governments. He tried to pay a credit card debt with a fictitious financial instrument called a "certified fractional reserve check." Brought into court in Michigan in 1993, he refused to walk to the front of the courtroom and denied the court's jurisdiction over him. Even when he wrote addresses on letters, Nichols made sure to use the abbreviation "TDC" to indicate that he was using the federal zip code under "threat, duress and coercion." These exhibitions of behavior might seem odd or even humorous, but the same ideology that led to those activities also helped lead Terry Nichols to assist Timothy McVeigh in building a bomb that would kill 168 people and injure hundreds more. By then the sovereign citizen movement to which Nichols subscribed had embarked upon a nationwide resurgence that would last into the 21st century; its anti-government activities would cause problems in every region of the country.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Eh. Everything is connected to McVeigh. He's like Hitler. Dont like something? Draw 6 degrees to McVeigh. Instant demonization.

Conspiracies aside McVeighs actions were his own. Nobody elses.

That other "paper terrorism" crap is just that. Boo-hoo if the fed doesnt like putting itself out because somebody isnt cooperating the way they want them to. The only thing being hurt is the system they set up. The credit card fraud bit is absolutely wrong though. If he entered into a contract with the credit issuer he's responsible for his end of the contract. Whether the money is bunk or the system corrupt he still had a contract within that corrupt system. You cant use sovereign citizenship as an excuse to default on your debts if they are true debts. Which is one the problems with the movement. Too many involved are simply deadbeats who want to rationalize their bad behavior. Gives the real sovereigns a bad name.

"This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses."

Oh no say it ain't so! They clog up the legal system? Those bastards!

Darn those... I'm sorry who's the new bad guy? The sovereign whosamawhatsit? I must've missed part of the movie.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

Eh. Everything is connected to McVeigh. He's like Hitler. Dont like something? Draw 6 degrees to McVeigh. Instant demonization.

Conspiracies aside McVeighs actions were his own. Nobody elses.

Nichols was his co-conspirator. The were like-minded individuals.

And he did give sovereigns a bad name...but you can't discard an example merely because it's inconvenient. You can't say no "sovereign citizen" would ever do anything violent, because you can't stereotype a whole group (either negatively OR positively).

Originally posted by Enigami
I guess im a terrorist.

Oh dear, better hope the CIA doesnt see this, I dont think they'll arrest you, but you did kind of admit to a legal offense. Best to say you were joking, eh?

There isn't enough space here to list the crimes that FBI has perpetrated on U.S. citezens.

Technically there should be no federal police.

Law enforcement should be handled by the individual states and local governments.

"Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal Government's misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive." -- Ron Paul (September 17, 1997)

The FBI is a gang, and criminal organization that masquerades as law enforcement and feeds off of corruption, extortion and bribery.

The have a public image, and they have a side few have seen, and lived to talk about.

The FBI is growing, gaining even more powers and ultimately will supersede any state and local law enforcement when and where it suites them to do so.





[edit on 14-4-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

reply to post by axiomaticobserver


haha...yes, you are right...i've made the necessary
adjustments...

reply to post by axiomaticobserver



I'm sorry what was the legal offense you're talking about? Or should I just let this go?


[edit on 14-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

Sovereign means that the government has to answer to the people.

The government doesn't like that. They are targeting people who know
their rights afforded through the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.

The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:

The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states. But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized as being the true sovereigns:

www.civil-liberties.com...

I would not call them terrorists by and large, but these people are criminals. They are stealing from their fellow citizen by taking part in only the parts of American society they like, and rejecting any part they do not. That's not how it works, and when you stop paying taxes, ignore laws and do whatever you please, sorry but you are a criminal. I am well aware most of these people want to just be left alone to do whatever they want, but as I have said many times before: if that is what you want, man up and go live in an unclaimed wilderness. Do that or shut up and play by the rules the rest of us America does, citizen. If you don't like the rules, work to change them politically.

Contrary to what many here on ATS would like you to believe, after my 2-week fact finding trip in the United States, I can conclusively say that legally these idiots do not have a leg to stand on legally. Any instance where a person does this and gets away with it is simply a matter of them not being enough of a bother for the government to arrest. However, when you do get to court for it, you will loose, period.

Bottom line to the so-called Sovereign Citizens: You are criminals, even though you reject it, you are hold to the social contract, and you have violated it.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I can't believe that you think its the sovereigns who are criminals. You sir must be so far gone and brainwashed by government propaganda that you are calling people, who stick up for the constitution and not this corrupt system, the criminals. You need to learn to live by the motto on this site and deny ignorance and do some research on your own to find out the truth about this matter instead of using your common sense. Google the e-book The Great IRS Hoax and read it or go to sedm.org and read some of their material to educate yourself.

reply to post by xSe7eNx


And you sir, are NOT the People. Remember that. It takes a PEOPLE to be soveriegn. YOU are only an individual, and your individual rights are covered under universal suffrage.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Uh,no. His rights aren't covered by "universal sufferage" they're covered by the bill of rights. "Universal Sufferage" just means that the right to vote is extended to all adults in the society.

I do have a question for you though. If the government passed a law asking you to do something wrong... Say, like if they required you to slash the tires of everyone who waters their lawn too much in the summer would you do it? Would you be right if you did it? Because the law told you too? Or would you be wrong because you're ruined several people's tires?



[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

reply to post by Cincinnatus


Not to answer a question with another, and to accept your question with a direct reply:-

I would not do it and will instead talk to my family, relatives and friends to VOTE OUT such a nonsensical govt with nothing better to do, with no better ideas on how to conserve water, or to convince citizens to save water!

Edit/Adduem:- Remember, no civilised society, with differences for no 2 humans can think alike, we arent robots, can survive without a leader to convince and administer to majority and minority nuances. He cannot please everyone, but he can keep the majority on a common goal of achieving aspirations.

If you think you can do better than the leader, either you take the lead or the wilderness beckons for you to live the lifestyle of your personal choice.

In that wilderness, you alone become 'the People', to make your own social, economic and political/foriegn policy choice, so long as you dare conciounably renounce what your society had done for you since birth.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


But you wouldn't do it. So you're saying there are some laws which the government can create which should not be followed. Which are wrong. It seems to me that's what these sovereign people are doing. They are saying that some of these laws are wrong/improper (I realize the argument's more complicated then that but that's the gist) and they are acting on their conscience in refusing to follow them. Although it sounds like others are just scamming.

That sounds like precisely what you said in your reply. It's just a difference of degree between when you would draw the line and when they do. If I'm offbase on this please enlighten me. Also, is your wilderness article like a state of nature argument or what? I'm not fully getting that.

What I'm saying is that there are ethical considerations, rules of conscience which are at play in questions concerning the government and our duties to fellow citizens which exist without recourse to a state of nature. Is your argument at odds with that?

P.S. Also, sorry about all the edits. I'm new at this. And sorry for that "Uh, no" thing about rights in my last post that was a little chippy.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]