FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

It is interesting that this idea of Sovereign Citizens still is believed by so many after being so completely debunked. I think it's because it is seen as a kind of holy grail for people whom do not like the idea of a government. It's got a lot of the promises that some Libertarians and Anarchists have been wanting for a long time.

Just looking at how rabidly some of the members of this site defend it, and from the discussions I had earlier this month in the United States, it's like a promised land really, somewhere over the horizon, but there are people that believe it absolutely, positively exists despite all of the judicial evidence.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
It is interesting that this idea of Sovereign Citizens still is believed by so many after being so completely debunked. I think it's because it is seen as a kind of holy grail for people whom do not like the idea of a government. It's got a lot of the promises that some Libertarians and Anarchists have been wanting for a long time.

Just looking at how rabidly some of the members of this site defend it, and from the discussions I had earlier this month in the United States, it's like a promised land really, somewhere over the horizon, but there are people that believe it absolutely, positively exists despite all of the judicial evidence.

Debunked? By "judicial evidence" do you mean case law? In American jurisprudence all case law begins with the Constitution for the United States, which begins with a Preamble that goes like this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are you suggesting this has been "debunked" by the very court system whose sole purpose of existence is to serve that? Yeah. At least the last poster actually attempted to cite case law to back up his claim. Clearly hadn't read the case law he cited, but who actually needs to read the ruling when they can instead utter the mystical incantations of a lawyer priest class, in the form of meaningless citation.

Oh well, Jenny Sparks is cool.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
It is interesting that this idea of Sovereign Citizens still is believed by so many after being so completely debunked. I think it's because it is seen as a kind of holy grail for people whom do not like the idea of a government. It's got a lot of the promises that some Libertarians and Anarchists have been wanting for a long time.

Just looking at how rabidly some of the members of this site defend it, and from the discussions I had earlier this month in the United States, it's like a promised land really, somewhere over the horizon, but there are people that believe it absolutely, positively exists despite all of the judicial evidence.

Debunked? By "judicial evidence" do you mean case law? In American jurisprudence all case law begins with the Constitution for the United States, which begins with a Preamble that goes like this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are you suggesting this has been "debunked" by the very court system whose sole purpose of existence is to serve that? Yeah. At least the last poster actually attempted to cite case law to back up his claim. Clearly hadn't read the case law he cited, but who actually needs to read the ruling when they can instead utter the mystical incantations of a lawyer priest class, in the form of meaningless citation.

Oh well, Jenny Sparks is cool.

So here's the big question: Have Sovereign Citizens ever won their cases, and gotten "Sovereignty?" Every legal expert I have talked to has said no. You're cause is perfectly failed in practice. You can dance around that as much as you want, but the simple fact is that there are no Sovereign Citizens recognized by the United States Federal Government.

In short, you've got nothing but words.

It's is a dream for the true-believers, that everyone else sees as a delusion. Your interpretation of the United States Constitution is not the same one that is accepted by the courts, therefore you are in the wrong.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


In response to me asking you if you were asserting that The Constitution of the United States of America had been "debunked", you answered:

So here's the big question: Have Sovereign Citizens ever won their cases, and gotten "Sovereignty?" Every legal expert I have talked to has said no. You're cause is perfectly failed in practice. You can dance around that as much as you want, but the simple fact is that there are no Sovereign Citizens recognized by the United States Federal Government.

Typical of the anti-sovereignty movement you answer my direct question with a question. You do this because you have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, you assert that every "legal expert" you have talked to has said no to your question. Of course, either you read all the posts in this thread or you didn't. It appears as if you didn't, because the question you have asked me, another poster also asked and I answered. Which means you are not only ignorant of the law, but lazy as well, expecting others to your work for you.

You claim the sovereignty cause is "perfectly failed" but can't back this assertion up with anything more than hearsay, and of course the irony of that is for the ignoramus of law who instead relies upon "legal experts" to tell them what law is, apparently these legal experts have never explained to you that in a court of law, at least in American Jurisprudence, hearsay is inadmissible in court.

Further irony is your assertion that there are no sovereign citizens "recognized by the federal government". It can only be assumed what is meant by such a ridiculous statement, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume you are confusing a sovereign being with a sovereign nation. A sovereign being need no recognition by the federal, nor the state or local governments in order to be sovereign. What the federal, state and local governments have recognized, is that all political power is inherent in the people. This was the purpose of posting the Preamble of which you ignored. Your "legal expert" friends, if sitting on a bench in a court of law, do not have the same lazy luxury you have, they are bound by the rule of law.

Since it is clear, by your own admission, you have no understanding of law, allow me to explain some very simple concepts to you. The Preamble of the federal Constitution makes clear who holds the inherent political power, and that is the People, who existed prior to the federal government, and came together in order to form a more perfect Union and Ordained the Constitutional republic in place.

Beyond that, the federal Constitution has a Bill of Rights that make clear that rights are inalienable and can not be taken away by government. Only an individual can forfeit their rights, through criminal activity. Falling short of any criminal activity, if it is a right, the federal, state, and local governments have no jurisdiction over those rights. When enacting legislation and then enforcing that legislation, federal and state constitutions have set in place a judicial system for the People as one option for a redress of grievances. Abrogation and derogation of a right would be a grievance. Do you understand?

These constitutionally mandated courts are courts of original jurisdiction, or appellate courts, or even final court of appeals. Beyond that, there have been other courts, not mandated by any constitution that do not function in the same way constitutionally mandated courts do. A probate court, or tax court is not a court of original jurisdiction, and can only have jurisdiction over those who granted it. For example, when a "taxpayer" has a dispute with the tax collector over how much tax is owed, this dispute will be settled in a "tax court", however, if a tax collection agency wishes to charge someone with "tax evasion" or "willful failure to file", for example, then this will not be settled in a tax court, but in a constitutionally mandated court of original jurisdiction. Do you follow?

All constitutionally mandated courts are required by law to operate under the due process of law explicitly laid out for them by constitution. Probate courts, traffic courts and tax courts are not as bound by this rule of law, since they have gained their jurisdiction directly from the people rather than indirectly by constitution. This fact alone demonstrates just how powerful that inherent political power of the People is, that a court not mandated by constitution can derive its just authority directly from the people rather than through a constitutional grant. This also begins to lay the legal foundation for the sovereign.

If a traffic court, tax court or probate court derives their jurisdiction directly from the person granting it, it follows that such a person need not grant such a court jurisdiction. A court that requires direct grant of power by the people can't demand this grant as a matter of law, they can only ask for it. Granted, in today's climate, these courts do not ask so nicely and will do all they can to huff and puff and blow the sovereigns house down, but the law remains the law.

Before a court can move into the fact finding of the case, if jurisdiction has been challenged, then there must first be an evidentiary hearing, where it will be determined if jurisdiction exists or not. (I would provide links to this, but since it is more than likely you haven't even bothered to read my past posts in this thread, why bother?) Once a trial has moved into the fact finding portion of that case, constitutional issues become moot, and the judge has full discretion on what authorities can be cited. Thus, the sovereign understanding this will refuse to plead, and instead respectfully challenge the jurisdiction.

"If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law."

~Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition pp 449

What a sovereign will do, a real sovereign and not the nut bags the sycophantic advocates of tyranny love to point to, will file a motion to vacate a void order, or motion to dismiss. You have refused to answer my question and instead asked your own question, which was:

Has a sovereign Citizens ever won their cases, and gotten "Sovereignty?"

You claim your "legal expert" buddies have assured you no such thing has ever happened, however what your buddies failed to inform you of is what I am doing now. Consider the case of Alpern v Alpern in the Appellate Court of Illinois, 4th District:

12. EUGENE has at all times challenged the lack of subject- matter jurisdiction of the 91-D-5122 trial court, and continues to deny that the 91-D-5122 trial court ever held subject-matter jurisdiction.

Courts have held that the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon PHYLLIS ALPERN ("PHYLLIS"). Bindell, supra; Loos, supra. And the failure of PHYLLIS to establish that the 91-D-5122 trial court ever held subject-matter jurisdiction does not confer any subject-matter jurisdiction upon that court - it still remains without subject-matter jurisdiction, as long as there is no Petition which can be examined to determine if it complies with statutory requirements. Bates v. Board of Education, Allendale Community Consolidated School District No. 17, 136 Ill.2d 260, 267 (1990) ("it cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid."). Nor does it confer any subject-matter jurisdiction upon this Court.

This Appellate court goes on to state:

When subject-matter jurisdiction is denied, it becomes the responsibility of the party claiming that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to prove that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell, supra; Ballard v. Fred E. Rawlins, M.D., Inc., 101 Ill.App.601, 428 N.E.2d 532 (1981) ("Where jurisdiction is denied by the defendant, the burden of proving its presence rests upon the party asserting it.").

And then goes on to say:

EUGENE has no burden to prove that the 91-D-5122 trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; contrary it is the duty of PHYLLIS to prove that the 91-D-5122 trial court held subject- matter jurisdiction at all times.

The Court then goes on to explain the difference between original jurisdiction and that conferred by agreement or consent, and the difference lies in subject matter jurisdiction:

Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by agreement or by consent. Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill.App.3d 499, 676 N.E.2d 679 (1st Dist. 1997) ("subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the consent or acquiescence of the parties, neither can it be conferred by estoppel"); Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. Box, 191 Ill.App.3d 31, 547 N.E.2d 627 (1st Dist. 1989) ("subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any form of laches, consent, waiver, or estoppel.").

At no time has EUGENE consented to, acquiesced to, or agreed that the 91-D-5122 trial court ever held subject-matter jurisdiction; even if EUGENE had, no subject-matter jurisdiction could be conferred upon that court by that procedure.

and explains why:

Without a valid Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the record of the 91-D-5122 trial court, the 91-D-5122 court was without subject-matter jurisdiction.

You have asked for case law, you are getting it, but such a thing takes time and space, and I am now out of space and must post again...

Cont...

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Continuing...

Here is what must be understood, this case is a higher court ruling because the moron sitting on the bench of that "divorce court" arrogantly dismissed Eugene Alpern's legitimate challenges of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court is rebuking that moron, who probably, being a judge, viewed himself as a "legal expert", but calling that clown an expert would be too kind. That Appellate Court continues with:

The Supreme Court, in Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930), stated that: "The petition required to put the court in motion and give it jurisdiction must be in conformity with the statute granting the right and must show all the facts necessary to authorize it to act, -i.e., it must contain all the statements which the statute says the petition shall state, - and if the petition fails to contain all of these essential elements the court is without jurisdiction."

Continuing with:

The Illinois Supreme Court, in Agricultural Transp. Ass'n v. Carpentier, 2 Ill.2d 19, 116 N.E.2d 863 (1953) stated: "Where the Supreme Court has declared the law on any point, it alone can overrule and modify its previous opinion, and the lower judicial tribunals are bound by such decision and it the duty of such lower tribunal to follow such decision in similar cases." This Court, as well as the 91-D-5122 trial case, without a Petition in the record of the case, have acted without jurisdiction.

Further stating:

Since there is no proof that the 91-D-5122 trial court held subject-matter jurisdiction, this Appellate Court did not hold subject-matter jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the trial court. The People v. Industrial Sav. Bank, 275 Ill. 139, 113 N.E. 937 (1916) ("Where the trial court has no jurisdiction, an appeal or writ of error can confer no jurisdiction on the reviewing court."); Marriage of Arrington, 146 Ill.App.3d 121, 497 N.E.2d 117 (1st District, 1986) ("It is axiomatic that when a trial court has no jurisdiction, an appeal cannot act to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court.").

Continuing with:

Where jurisdiction is challenged, the party claiming that the court has jurisdiction has the burden of producing the record which evidences that the court has the jurisdiction to act. EUGENE does not have the requirement to produce any record relative to jurisdiction. Only PHYLLIS has that burden, and she did not met her burden of proving that the trial court held subject-matter jurisdiction.

Making perfectly clear that:

As the Supreme Court has held, in Franson on Behalf of Franson v. Micelli, 172 Ill.2d 352, 666 N.E.2d 1188 (1996) that Illinois courts, including the Appellate Courts, have a duty not to exceed their jurisdiction and must vacate any void decision. The Court stated "When, as here, the appellate court has considered the merits of a case when it had no jurisdiction to do so, we must vacate the court's judgment and dismiss the appeal."

Explaining that:

This Court, just as in the Franson court, should not have attempted to consider the merits of the case when it did not have the subject-matter jurisdiction to do so. This court has a duty to vacate the void Rule 23 order that it improperly issued and a duty to vacate the void trial court judgment.

Going on to state:

As this court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the orders/judgment of a trial court without subject- matter jurisdiction, this court only had the inherent power to vacate the orders and judgment of the 91-D-5122 trial court for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court further has inherent power to declare any order void which was entered on any issue involved or on any procedural order entered as an adjunct to its consideration of any issue before it (whether on review or in any original proceeding). A court does not need subject-matter jurisdiction to vacate a void order; it only needs the inherent power of the court, which every court has, to vacate the void order issued on August 24, 1995.

As this court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the orders/judgment of a trial court without subject- matter jurisdiction, this court only had the inherent power to vacate the orders and judgment of the 91-D-5122 trial court for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court further has inherent power to declare any order void which was entered on any issue involved or on any procedural order entered as an adjunct to its consideration of any issue before it (whether on review or in any original proceeding). A court does not need subject-matter jurisdiction to vacate a void order; it only needs the inherent power of the court, which every court has, to vacate the void order issued on August 24, 1995.

The court explains that Eugene Alpern, (using the same argument a sovereign makes), "suggested":

EUGENE suggests that since this Court has determined that there was no Petition in the record of appeal (a record identical to the record of the case), the natural and reasonable consequences of those facts are embodied in the law which states that jurisdiction was never conferred upon the trial court. This Court should therefore vacate the trial judgment as being void for lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellate Court took Eugene's suggestion and voided and vacated the order.

The other poster keeps insisting that it is I who has a burden of proof and your evasiveness implies the same. However, this case law just cited, stated over and over and over again that this presumption is patently false. That Appellate Court relied upon several previous court rulings as authority to support their own findings; such as:

The burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the court party asserting it.

~Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill App 3d 1042, 571 N.E. 2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991)

as well as:

Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.

~Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill. App 3d 558, 522 N.E. 2d 841 (1988)

The Appellate Court in the matter of Alpern v Alpern also cited a few Supreme Court rulings of which they quoted directly. There are other rulings outside of this, such as:

Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court can not proceed when it clearly appears the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action.

~Melo v U.S., 505 f. 2d 1026 U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit~

or:

There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction

~Joyce v U.S., 474 f2d 215 U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit~

I could go on and on and on and on citing instance of case law that support my contentions, but if you don't want to believe it, then just as the Catholic Church branded Galileo a heretic for asserting a heliocentric solar system as opposed to a geocentric one, you will simply declare yourself right in spite of the fact that the Earth still moves.

You state:

In short, you've got nothing but words.

Ironic words indeed, given this is all you have relied upon to "debunk" the sovereign movement, without a single citation or instance of authority to back up your empty words. You continue on with your empty rhetoric:

It's is a dream for the true-believers, that everyone else sees as a delusion. Your interpretation of the United States Constitution is not the same one that is accepted by the courts, therefore you are in the wrong.

Yet, I have cited several instances of case law that prove you wrong. My interpretation of the Constitution is in line with a long line of American Jurisprudence. You can ignore this, or come back in and waste your time with more empty rhetoric, or you can discuss the matter reasonably, and if I have misinterpreted the law, explain through credible evidence how I have. That choice is entirely your. However, if you were a judge, that choice would not exist.

It should be noted that I have cited higher court rulings which makes clear that there are judges on the bench just as ignorant to law as you are. So, while a lower court judge may assume they have discretion, they are wrong.

Your own fear of freedom is your problem friend, and I would love to help you with this problem if I can, but that choice is yours to make, because you are truly free to make that choice. I realize there is a mass of people who believe that law is nothing more than consensus, but this is just not the case. It is not I who is delusional any more than Galileo was delusional, the Church was delusional and it took that Church 500 years to finally admit their mistake regarding a heliocentric solar system.

The general consensus at the time the Wright Brothers were building their air planes was that they were delusional, and yet today there exists a thread in this site that claims residents of the U.K. marvel at the clear skies since all flights had been grounded due to a volcanic eruption. Delusional? Okay.

Originally posted by xSe7eNx
Now however here is another pdf if you even care that explains a lot of it in a far more legal sense because these are documents you could send in to the government and every bit of religious tie in this document can be taken right out and is not required (there is barely any not near as much as the other pdf). PDF

I think the document you referenced here is just as bad. There is a "catch" to all of this.

In the document you referenced, I found this statement in reference to claiming de facto:

"This form has the effect of creating dual citizenship:
1. In the country and Republic of your birth 2. In Heaven. It also makes one of the two citizenships subordinate to the other."

So it would appear to me that you are still giving your authority to some entity---be it the Republic or the Pope (who represents the Kingdom of Heaven).

And, in order to make these forms of "emancipation" legal, you still have to swear an oath (to whom? God's representative?) and pay $$$ fees.

Originally posted by 911stinks
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...

Right on! I can hardly believe the FBI would stoop so low, to equate true Sovereign citizens with terrorists is just wrong. I live in Ohio, and have asserted my own Sovereign status to the local police and sheriff. The locals didn't like it, but the sheriff's dept told me it was my right as a citizen. All my State issued documents are signed with UCC-1 308, and "All rights Reserved." The DMV people didn't even blink with I signed my license.

come on, FBI, you guys work for us, and we are not these guys! this is akin to calling Tea Party members Nazis, and worse. It's all propaganda, people! Wake up!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am consolidating comments to several of your posts in this one in order to save space and time.

That doesn't make you any less liable for paying taxes in the country where you reside, citizen or not.

No truer words could be said about taxes and liability. If a person is indeed liable for a tax, then they must pay that tax.

So the whole 'sovereign citizen' thing is crap then, isn't it? No matter what your citizenship status is, you still reside with in the United States are are subject to its tax law. Which, by the way, the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy.

You just proved my point, didn't you? Do you honestly believe a judge, even the SCOTUS, can simply invent liability that doesn't all ready exist by statute? Do you have any idea what the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax" is, or do you just cut and paste case law citations without even considering what you are posting.

No, I didn't prove your point. Do you honestly believe that a legal case is not an interpretation of a law or a Constitutional provision or some such? Those cases are are examples of people challenging the Tax Law in exactly the way you are proposing. And consistently failing. Over and Over and Over. The courts aren't inventing the statute you are looking for, they are interpreting it. The fact that the case exists and the petitioner failed is obvious evidence that valid legal liability has been established.

Can you supply an actual statute from the IRC that makes a dishwahser, a plumber or a shoe salesman liable for this tax? Good luck.

Of course not. The IRS (I'll assume IRC was a typo) doesn't make statutes. Are you asking is there a statute that defines wages as income? Yes: 26 USC sec. 61. And this has been exhaustively tested in court:

Please refer to the dozens of cases cited here addressing exactly the question you ask. Wages is not Income

It is not true that I made any such accusation. I asked you questions.

That is disingenuous. You didn't just ask me a question. By asking me to quote the statute the IRS operates to claim tax liability, and insisting that there is no such statute, you are in fact accusing the IRS of theft.

If one is "tax-exempt" they must necessarily be subject to the tax law and liable for a tax to begin with. If one is not subject to that law and therefore not liable for a tax they need no exemption.

That is possibly true, a Buenos Aires shoe shine boy probably doesn't need an exemption from US Income tax. What is not possible, however, is that you can place yourself in that second category by renouncing your U.S. Citizenship and claiming to be a 'Sovereign'. The Family Guardian people remain carefully ambiguous about which of those two categories they claim to justify that they are not subject to paying tax, because if they were honest and told them they were in the first category people would realize how full of crap the entire concept is.

You have hidden behind case law you, in all likelihood have not read yourself. What you have failed to do is provide the statutes these court rulings are based upon. You, nor anyone else, can make a person liable for a tax based upon case law. The courts have no jurisdiction to impose a tax. Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation, not the courts. Your libelous remark that I have made demonstrably fraudulent claims is beyond the pale. Your ignorance of the law is inexcusable.

True, I have not read each of the cases quoted. I have read some however and have come to trust the source of the summaries. I don't need to provide the statutes the rulings are based upon, they exist and are not based on hallucinations. I'm not making anybody liable for tax, nor are the courts imposing a tax. Congress hasimposed the tax. The courts have interpreted the laws passed by Congress in cases brought before it to test the claims you are defending here. I have only showed you the irrefutable proof of the absurdity of those claims. Your ignorance of rational thought and anything approaching intellectual honesty is inexcusable.

If you are attempting to present yourself as one who has the legal authority to asses my tax liability, you bet your sweet patootie you have to back that up with legislation authorizing you to make such an assessment.

I suspect you are misinterpreting the target of my statement. I was referring to the author(s) of the Family Guardian documents, which is what was under discussion when you entered the discussion. Are you claiming to be one of those authors?

Your blatant falsehood that only the courts have jurisdiction to interpret law is insane. All other branches, each government official is required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. This would mean they necessarily have to interpret it to do so. Further, each and everyone of us are presumed to know the law. How are we expected to know the law if we are not allowed to interpret it?

Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. Government officials are not allowed to interpret the Constitution and the law, they must rely on legal counsel within their departments. Of course every individual can and does interpret the Constitution and the laws and the regulations, etc. But only the interpretation by the Courts has any legal standing.

Your ignorance of case law is astounding. If a sovereign successfully uses the court what has happened is that this sovereign has successfully demonstrated to the judge that there is no jurisdiction over him. Since that sovereign was successful, this means the only authority the judge has in the matter is to dismiss the case. How many instance of dismissals have you read as case law? None! Absolutely none!!

Sovereignty (in your meaning of the word) is a will-o-the-wisp. It doesn't exist, and no hallucination will make it so. There have been dozens of cases of people claiming to be sovereign in one way or another, how many have succeeded? Exactly Zero!

Since that sovereign was successful, this means the only authority the judge has in the matter is to dismiss the case. How many instance of dismissals have you read as case law? None! Absolutely none!!

You make my point. If any had been successful, anywhere, anytime, EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT. Are you so deluded that you don't realize what a precedent that would make? There are hundreds of charletons on the internet spouting this sovereignty crap, you seriously think they would be crowing a successful sovereignty challenge from the highest roof tops? Are you really that naive?

In response to me asking you if you were asserting that The Constitution of the United States of America had been "debunked", you answered:

You didn't ask 'a direct question'. You asked a rhetorical question. You know you wouldn't get 'proper' answer to it, and the non-answer you got is exactly what the question deserved. Just so you know that we see through your tactic.



[edit on 24/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Before a court can move into the fact finding of the case, if jurisdiction has been challenged, then there must first be an evidentiary hearing, where it will be determined if jurisdiction exists or not. (I would provide links to this, but since it is more than likely you haven't even bothered to read my past posts in this thread, why bother?) Once a trial has moved into the fact finding portion of that case, constitutional issues become moot, and the judge has full discretion on what authorities can be cited. Thus, the sovereign understanding this will refuse to plead, and instead respectfully challenge the jurisdiction.

etc...

OK, look its cool.

We understand your argument, jurisdiction has to be established before a court can look at a case. That's why Orly Taitz is doomed to failure and her continued screaming has just gone past the tipping point of boredom.

As has yours, to be honest.

You want evidence of jurisdictional standing in tax law. Please explain why this isn't it:

• Article 1 Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
  
• Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...
  
• Article 2 Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
  
• Article 2 Section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls... and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
  
• Article 2 Section 3: ... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...
  
• Article 3 Section 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
  

Since you apparently aren't familiar with the source document before, I'll help you out: it is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you seriously asserting that the Congress doesn't have authority to pass tax law, and that the President doesn't have the authority to execute that law, that the President doesn't have the Authority (with consent of Congress) to organize his Executive as he sees fit to best execute those laws, and that the courts don't have the authority to rule on legal questions surrounding those federal tax laws?

Or alternatively, the Congress hasn't passed the offending tax law?

[edit on 24/4/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 24/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Alright mate, I'm done with this. I am coming at your arguments from a journalist's perspective, not that of a self-proclaimed end-all-be-all legal firebrand. I'm telling you what the people who make law, study law, teach law and practice law for a living have told me. Every single one from professors to lawyers to political office holders have told me that the Sovereign Citizen's movement is moronic and has no merit whatsoever.

You call everyone who disagrees with you, including all legal experts, idiots or worse. This is pure egoism, and not something that is acceptable to a journalist researching a story. It would give me some nice quotes but only ones that would be very bad for you.

My Aussi counterpart has done a great job of getting into the legal details, a far better job than I could, or have the time to do the research on. I've got quite a demanding day job as well.

Look mate, you're not going to bend on this one, no matter how many people tell you it's a lost cause. I'm done with it. On one side I have you, some guy on the internet railing against literally dozens of professionals from around the government, universities and private practice. There is something that must be thought of in journalistic matters, and that is the weight of legitimacy. You have very little, so the burden of proof falls upon you and you have failed to live up to it. If I was going to press with a story on this today, you'd come off as a nutter. Be very glad that I am not doing a story on this.

Cheers to you.

reply to post by rnaa


Allow me to take your points working backwards with first this remark:

You want evidence of jurisdictional standing in tax law. Please explain why this isn't it:

Which is nothing more than a blatant falsehood of what I have asked for. While you began your most recent reply to me by claiming you were going to consolidate my words to save time and space, it is clear your motives were well beyond time in space, otherwise you would not have edited my own words which made clear that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation, only so you could make the point less eloquently.

I didn't ask you to show how tax law has jurisdictional standing, and you know it. You also know what I asked of you and you know you can't effectively answer the question, so let's take your citation of Constitution and address them point by pointB:

* Article 1 Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

* Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

* Article 2 Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

* Article 2 Section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls... and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

* Article 2 Section 3: ... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...

* Article 3 Section 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Both Sections 7 and 8 of Article I support my contention that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation. Your citation of Article II Section 1 is only relevant in that the IRS by default fall under the Treasury Department, being a part of the Executive branches cabinet. Article I Section 2 establishes an authority for Congress to create an administrative agency such as the IRS, (and it is Congress that created this agency), and to a lesser extent allowing the Courts to interpret legislation regarding taxation. Article II, Section 3 is again another irrelevant citation as the President has nothing at all to do with the enforcement of taxes, except for the fact that the Treasurer falls within his purview, all the President can do is choose who that Treasurer is. Finally Article III, Section I merely establishes a limited jurisdiction for the SCOTUS.

How ironic then, when after posting these citations you make this ridiculous remark:

Since you apparently aren't familiar with the source document before, I'll help you out: it is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you seriously asserting that the Congress doesn't have authority to pass tax law, and that the President doesn't have the authority to execute that law, that the President doesn't have the Authority (with consent of Congress) to organize his Executive as he sees fit to best execute those laws, and that the courts don't have the authority to rule on legal questions surrounding those federal tax laws?

Do you seriously believe people are so stupid that they can not read that I all ready made clear that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation? Further, you clearly have no idea how the IRS came into existence. There is nothing at all more boring than tax law, so rather than go into to great detail of how the IRS was a product of evolution from the BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue), let's just rely upon the IRS's own brief history of their existence:

Origin The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

This IRS reflection continues with:

16th Amendment In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

What is important in this assessment of their own origins is not that they gloss over the actual evolution of it, but that they contradict themselves from one paragraph to the next. They make clear that Congress not only had the authority to lay and collect taxes on Income prior to the 16th Amendment, they imply that the Revenue Act of 1864 had no problem passing Constitutional muster. Anyone that has a clue about the case law regarding that revenue act knows full well that the SCOTUS upheld the Constitutionality of that income tax in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)

Yet remarkably in the very next paragraph they make the claim that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax, as if they didn't all ready have that complete and plenary power to begin with. This willful obfuscation has everything to do with the SCOTUS decision that struck down the entire income portion of the Revenue act of 1894 as unconstitutional--the remainder of that revenue act still stands to this day. The SCOTUS ruling that ruled that income tax as unconstitutional is known as Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co..

The 16th Amendment was a direct response to the Pollack ruling, but before explaining that significance, let me remind you why I am giving you this crucial history lesson; in citing the Constitution to establish jurisdiction you, in my opinion willfully omitted certain Sections of the Constitution in order to ignore the obvious constraints that were placed upon Congress' complete and plenary power of taxation. For example; Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

and of course, you conveniently omitted Clause 5 from that same Section which states:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

So, while it is Congress who has been invested with the COMPLETE AND PLENARY POWER OF TAXATION, they do not derive this power without Constitutional restraints.

Moving on from your last post to the one above it, you make a silly comment about me not asking a direct question and instead a rhetorical question which is not worth arguing over I only mention it to maintain a sense of continuity of working backwards. So, your comment above this empty rhetoric of yours was a response to my insistence that there is no such thing as case law when all charges have been dismissed. You state:

You make my point. If any had been successful, anywhere, anytime, EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT. Are you so deluded that you don't realize what a precedent that would make? There are hundreds of charletons on the internet spouting this sovereignty crap, you seriously think they would be crowing a successful sovereignty challenge from the highest roof tops? Are you really that naive?

You clearly have a hard time understanding the issues of law you are attempting to deal with. A precedent is in law is a judicial ruling that may be used a standard by which to determine future rulings. If a judge dismisses charges this means the case never went to trial, thus there are no rulings to be used as precedent. It is really not so hard to understand that but you yammer on with silly remarks such as:

Sovereignty (in your meaning of the word) is a will-o-the-wisp. It doesn't exist, and no hallucination will make it so. There have been dozens of cases of people claiming to be sovereign in one way or another, how many have succeeded? Exactly Zero!

Yes! Precisely! There is exactly Zero case because the sovereign was successful and thus no trial took place. Hello! But you continue with your remarkably dim understanding of law, and by continue I mean backwards, with this;

Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. Government officials are not allowed to interpret the Constitution and the law, they must rely on legal counsel within their departments. Of course every individual can and does interpret the Constitution and the laws and the regulations, etc. But only the interpretation by the Courts has any legal standing.

Your assertion that government officials are not allowed to interpret the Constitution and the law, and must rely on legal counsel is just a lie, there is no better word to describe it.

Cont...

reply to post by rnaa


Continuing...

Allow me to re-quote that whopper of a lie you told:

Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. Government officials are not allowed to interpret the Constitution and the law, they must rely on legal counsel within their departments. Of course every individual can and does interpret the Constitution and the laws and the regulations, etc. But only the interpretation by the Courts has any legal standing.

There is, of course, no Constitutional requirement that government officials must rely upon legal counsel within their departments. This is your invention, or probably more correctly a canard put out by lawyers, but it is a lie. First off, Congress are government officials, are you so ignorant as to believe that Congress is not allowed to interpret their own legislation? It matters not since the latter part of your comment practically contradicts the former. Your next comment I only quote to answer your question:

I suspect you are misinterpreting the target of my statement. I was referring to the author(s) of the Family Guardian documents, which is what was under discussion when you entered the discussion. Are you claiming to be one of those authors?

I do not know of this Family Guardian document you speak of, nor have I ever heard of Orly Taitz. This is your game and has nothing at all to do with me, but no I am not misinterpreting the target of any statement. Your response just quoted is to my insistence that the burden of proof regarding any persons liability for taxes lies upon the party asserting such liability.

True, I have not read each of the cases quoted. I have read some however and have come to trust the source of the summaries. I don't need to provide the statutes the rulings are based upon, they exist and are not based on hallucinations. I'm not making anybody liable for tax, nor are the courts imposing a tax. Congress hasimposed the tax. The courts have interpreted the laws passed by Congress in cases brought before it to test the claims you are defending here. I have only showed you the irrefutable proof of the absurdity of those claims. Your ignorance of rational thought and anything approaching intellectual honesty is inexcusable.

Thank you for your honesty here, it makes you infinitely more likable. Unfortunately, you continue on with a remark that is incorrect. Yes, if you are the one asserting another has a tax liability, you do have to provide the statutes that grant you such authority to make that assessment as well as the statute/s that made the person you assessed liable to begin with. I suggest you follow your own assertion and rely upon legal counsel for further instruction on that, because I sincerely doubt a lawyer would tell you otherwise.

That is possibly true, a Buenos Aires shoe shine boy probably doesn't need an exemption from US Income tax. What is not possible, however, is that you can place yourself in that second category by renouncing your U.S. Citizenship and claiming to be a 'Sovereign'. The Family Guardian people remain carefully ambiguous about which of those two categories they claim to justify that they are not subject to paying tax, because if they were honest and told them they were in the first category people would realize how full of crap the entire concept is.

Again, I have no idea what your talking about when referencing The Family Guardian thing, and I have no idea why you keep jumping from tax law to sovereignty arguments as if the two are the same. They are not, and if you expect me to understand what you are referring to I suggest you drop the Family Guardian nonsense because I assure I have intentions of wasting my time reading what ever it is this document claims.

Your next comment was in response to my assertion that I did not accuse the government of criminal activity. Here is your response:

That is disingenuous. You didn't just ask me a question. By asking me to quote the statute the IRS operates to claim tax liability, and insisting that there is no such statute, you are in fact accusing the IRS of theft.

Before responding to that I am now going to go back down and quote you from the post below this post I am quoting:

OK, look its cool. We understand your argument, jurisdiction has to be established before a court can look at a case.

You clearly don't understand a damn thing about jurisdiction. If in fact, there is no statute, and I am aware of none, which clearly you are not aware of any either, that makes me liable for a tax, then any person who attempts to make liable without clear and irrefutable evidence that I am indeed on who has been made liable for that tax, is not operating within the scope of their jurisdiction. As such, they are not a government official when doing such a thing, but a private citizen acting under color of law, simulating legal process. Get it?

Of course not. The IRS (I'll assume IRC was a typo) doesn't make statutes. Are you asking is there a statute that defines wages as income? Yes: 26 USC sec. 61. And this has been exhaustively tested in court:

First, thanks for finally supplying a statute, it is more than greatly appreciated. Before I address 26 USC Sec 61, let me just clarify that there was no typo and the IRC is known as The Internal Revenue Code. Secondly, no I am not asking if there is a statute that defines wages as income, I am first and foremost asking what the damn subject of the tax is, is it a direct tax on income or an indirect tax on income and where specifically in the code has a tax been laid upon that subject? Now, let's get to your gross,(pun intended), misinterpretation of Section 61, which states in part:

§ 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

It doesn't take a legal expert to realize this section is defining "gross income and not income. Income has not been defined by the Internal Revenue Code of which typing out in full so you don't think its a typo. Further, this section of the code does nothing at all to explain how it was I became liable to begin with.

The issue of taxation and sovereignty are two separate issues, and you are wasting my time by bringing up arguments other people made in order to dismiss my valid questions.

The sovereignty movement is a repackaged, rebranded and heavily marketed version of the redemption or sovereign citizen movement which was developed within the Posse Commitatus Movement by David Gale. Gale was a minister within the Christian Identity movement which believes that all nonwhites were born without souls and can never earn Gods favor. This is white supremacy and the very definition of it.

Its two biggest mistakes, and the two things which are held by its believers to its biggest legal backings are that the term inalienable actually mean unable to have a lien levvied against something, or in-a-lien-able. This is legal nonsense, and makes absolutely no sense. No one, from english teachers to law professors to lawyers and judges hold this to be accurate.

The other goof is making a hock-gnawed attempt at reinterpreting the 14th amendment to mean that corporations removed the sovereignty of the individual. Actually, its just the opposite and the reality of the matter is even worse than what the sovereign folks want to say it means. The 14th amendment was interpreted in the 1870's to grant "personhood" status to corporations. This was very dangerous because it gave corporations rights which they neither need, deserve, nor have demonstrated a responsible use of. Fascism, or corporatism, would not have been possible had it not been for these decisions, so in effect, America created fascism by creating the seed for its germination..

I dont think that the FBI is really targeting this movement more than they are steering it in an attempt at setting up another Montana Freemen standoff situation without having to do any investigation. If you can set up the groups you want to take down, it is much easier and you can make it look like youve done a really thorough investigation.

Most of the people who Ive met who adhere to this theory arent white supremacists at all. Its really sad to see so many good people keeping alive the legal delusions of a lifelong racist who went to jail for trying to excercise his sovereignty becasue all the legal tactics which are supposed to protect the sovereign have no standing in the court and are mostly illegal themselves.

reply to post by 4by4dave


You know what I find interesting is that I haven't read much from those who support the sovereignty movement in this site make the claims the anti-sovereignty movement in this thread insists they claim. The anti-sovereignty movement loves to point to this book, that document and yadda, yadda, yadda, but each post I read where these experts from the anti-sovereignty movement post keep bringing up people I've never even heard of.

I've never heard of this David Gale you speak of, and the only David Gale I've ever heard of was a fictional character in this horribly directed film by Alan Parker. It is odd to me that the anti-sovereignty movement feels so compelled to assert that the sovereignty movement is a product of a leader, apparently not understanding the definition of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is defined as Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or state. The fundamental truth of the United States is that this nation broke free from the Madness of King George who claimed himself to be a sovereign, but those who broke free claimed sovereignty for themselves. They understood that the Supremacy of authority came directly from the People, and any state or federal sovereignty was secondary to that.

I am not quoting a single soul on this, these are my own words, and given that any sovereign is not ruled by an external force, it is ludicrous to think any sovereign would make this claim based upon an external force, other than that of our Creator.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

You know what I find interesting is that I haven't read much from those who support the sovereignty movement in this site make the claims the anti-sovereignty movement in this thread insists they claim. The anti-sovereignty movement loves to point to this book, that document and yadda, yadda, yadda, but each post I read where these experts from the anti-sovereignty movement post keep bringing up people I've never even heard of.

I've never heard of this David Gale you speak of, and the only David Gale I've ever heard of was a fictional character in this horribly directed film by Alan Parker. It is odd to me that the anti-sovereignty movement feels so compelled to assert that the sovereignty movement is a product of a leader, apparently not understanding the definition of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is defined as Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or state. The fundamental truth of the United States is that this nation broke free from the Madness of King George who claimed himself to be a sovereign, but those who broke free claimed sovereignty for themselves. They understood that the Supremacy of authority came directly from the People, and any state or federal sovereignty was secondary to that.

I am not quoting a single soul on this, these are my own words, and given that any sovereign is not ruled by an external force, it is ludicrous to think any sovereign would make this claim based upon an external force, other than that of our Creator.

Anti-sovereignty movement? Youre astroturfing. There is no anti-sovereignty -movement- This is nothing more than a convenient way for the misled and loving it to demonize anyone who offers evidence that they may be wrong for the benefit of other people who are mislead and loving it. Anti-sovereigns? Makes people sound like real crapweasels huh.

Quoting this document or that yada yada? Yeah....Just like in REAL law, you have a burden of proof. This is something that redemptionists are just not willing to provide, stating simply Im a sovereign and I don't have to prove it to you. Im sovereign under Gods laws and thats the only proof you need. Then they go on to run off at the mouth with a bunch of misinterpreted or made up entirely legal bulldookie.


www.accessmylibrary.com...

www.sullivan-county.com...

books.google.com...,+Christian+Identity&source=bl&ots=Q3jQ7pwPEQ&sig=rEzrMlSQIixy_ePrE0Pct GFU4dE&hl=en&ei=CTvUS5D4OoPA8wS8jIGxDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBQ

www.seekgod.ca...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Mefoird, OR judge gives redemption movement scammer 3 years in jail:
www.oregonlive.com...

hennepin.timberlakepublishing.com...

[edit on 25-4-2010 by 4by4dave]

reply to post by 4by4dave


Yep, just one more person claiming the burden of proof nonsense. Any fool that would walk into a court and make wild ass assertions has a burden of proof, any sovereign dragged into court based upon dubious legislation and challenges the jurisdiction has no burden of proof and that burden belongs with the court party asserting it. That is the law. Not that you or all these other "concerned" citizens would ever offer that information. Please.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

Yep, just one more person claiming the burden of proof nonsense. Any fool that would walk into a court and make wild ass assertions has a burden of proof, any sovereign dragged into court based upon dubious legislation and challenges the jurisdiction has no burden of proof and that burden belongs with the court party asserting it. That is the law. Not that you or all these other "concerned" citizens would ever offer that information. Please.

Yep, just one more fed or useful idiot claiming the "take it on faith" nonsense. Any fool that would walk into a court and make wild ass assertions that laws do not apply to them and they are only accountable to God for their actions has the burden to prove that they are in fact correct. Any sovereign claiming legal immunity based on dubious assertions that the law does not apply to them is essentially denying the Constitution which provides for a tool which we may use to be able to hold each other accountable for our actions.

Youre either a fed or a useful idiot who is helping the feds set up the biggest fake domestic terror cell in American history. If this sovereignty thing keeps ramping up the way it is and the obviously astroturfed RAP bs, then the feds may even be abale to produce a "domestic terror cell" in every state which would be quite convenient for them to go ahead and shut down whats left of America.

I wonder how yall can sleep at night leading so many folks down the road to perdition.

reply to post by 4by4dave


Yep, there you go presenting a false picture of sovereignty, again. Any fool that would walk into a court asserting law does not apply to him has no understanding of law. Any fool that thinks they can invent law and use it to trample all over the rights of the people deserves all that they get.

I have walked into court several times and challenged jurisdiction and never at any point did I make the claims you pretend I make. In fact, only once did I have to make any assertions at all, and all I did was cite case law. Each time, the charges brought against me were dropped. Not because I am immune from law, but because I relied upon the rule of law. But its not like you want that information out there, do you? Yeah! How do you sleep?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

Yep, there you go presenting a false picture of sovereignty, again. Any fool that would walk into a court asserting law does not apply to him has no understanding of law. Any fool that thinks they can invent law and use it to trample all over the rights of the people deserves all that they get.

I have walked into court several times and challenged jurisdiction and never at any point did I make the claims you pretend I make. In fact, only once did I have to make any assertions at all, and all I did was cite case law. Each time, the charges brought against me were dropped. Not because I am immune from law, but because I relied upon the rule of law. But its not like you want that information out there, do you? Yeah! How do you sleep?

Either youre quite simply lying, which is prolly the case since you didnt actually provide any links to the course case material you referenced and again took the "take it on faith" that the court case youre saying you were successful with, or youre located in a small town with a dumb judge -which is common- who just wanted you the hell out of his courtroom cause he didn't wanna listen to any crap that day and figured it would be easier to just drop the charges than go round and round in circles with a doofus.

Whats the case citation for what youre talking about and please provide a link - all that stuff is public information that anyone with internet acess can look up and see for themselves whether or not youre lying. Im accusing you of lying right here and right now. You have the burden to prove that youre not. You wont, becasue there is no case. Youre making up strawmen. Classic astroturfing technique.

reply to post by 4by4dave


Talk about a useful idiot. When jurisdiction is properly challenged, the charges are dropped and no trial moves forward. Without a trial there is no case law to cite. How many time must I explain this?