FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by MKULTRA

 

Please be more specific with your terminology and terms.

Do you mean a citizen of the UNITED STATES? A corporation.

Or do you mean a sovereign citizen of the United States of America? A country.

Cannot just go throwing any old words out there and infer something. You must be more articulate or the Priests of the "color of law" will call you a heretic and burn you at the stake!

[edit on 4/30/2010 by endisnighe]

Thanks, I was referring to the trademarked "UNITED STATES" corporation, which is a fictional entity that does not exist in nature. I was not referring to the physical land referred to as "these" united states. It is impossible to be a citizen of physical land, but one can be an occupant of physical land.

The easy way around this entire argument about sovereignty is to challenge political jurisdiction, and, avoid volunteering into a jurisdiction in the first place.

From Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed):

Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, 2(1).

reply to post by MKULTRA


Well, maybe I was remiss in my explanation.

Maybe something like I am a citizen of the Constitutionally recognized United States of America, not the "color of law" UNITED STATES.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by MKULTRA

 

Well, maybe I was remiss in my explanation.

Maybe something like I am a citizen of the Constitutionally recognized United States of America, not the "color of law" UNITED STATES.

I understand what you mean, we're on the same page

reply to post by xSe7eNx

So how are you a citizen and not a resident?

Because I do not currently reside in the United States, even though I was born and raised there.

I AM NOT a person, resident, corporation, individual. I am ONLY a living human being with a soul.

That there exists a legal fiction of a 'legal person' does not negate the existence of a 'natural person' (which is also known as a 'human being') as both a legal and mundane fact. The unmodified word 'person' can and does mean either or both depending on context. In the case quoted, the phrase is 'person or thing', the context clearly indicates that the word 'person' can only mean 'natural person' because it is juxtaposed with the word 'thing' which can only mean 'not a natural person' and nothing else.

Your pretense that you don't understand the English language is going to get you in serious trouble some day if you carry it to its obvious conclusion.

You simply have no argument what-so-ever.

The motto of this board is 'Deny Ignorance' not 'Embrace Ignorance'. Please stop insulting the intelligence of the precious few who are actually taking the time to read your posts.



[edit on 2/5/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by MKULTRA

From Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed):

Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, 2(1).

Thank you.

I would just like to add that the word 'include' as in 'may include a firm...' means 'add to the definition' not 'be replaced by'.


[edit on 1/5/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by rnaa

United States Code Title 26 Subtitle F Chapter 7701 Cornell University Law
School

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(1) Person
.....The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a .....trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or
manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(30) United States person
.....The term “United States person” means—
..........(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
..........(B) a domestic partnership,
..........(C) a domestic corporation,
..........(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph ..........(31)), and
...............(E) any trust if—
....................(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary ....................supervision over the administration of the trust, and
....................(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all ....................substantial decisions of the trust.

These are statutes that define YOU.

So tell me, are you a person, corporation, resident, citizen, or a HUMAN BEING?

rnaa apparently you missed this post which states that in the USC they are NOT talking about a "natural person". You are absolutely ridiculous with your arguments and I am done trying to convince of you something when you obviously will never admit that you might be wrong. I will be taking some more time to compile ALL the information I know into one big post and will start a thread on it sometime soon. I'll make sure to send you a message and let you know...

reply to post by xSe7eNx

rnaa apparently you missed this post which states that in the USC they are NOT talking about a "natural person".

Since when isn't an 'individual' not a 'natural person'? Answer: never.

You are just going around in circles finding examples where the word person is expanded to include more than just a 'natural person' and deciding that that some how removes 'natural person' from the definition. You are being ridiculous.

You seem to be able to put coherent sentences together, even if the thoughts expressed are not comparably coherent. So the the only conclusion is that you continue to pretend to not understand plain English for the sole purpose of being obstinate.

There is no point in discussing anything with you on that basis. I find I have more intelligent conversations with a brick wall.

reply to post by rnaa

There is no point in discussing anything with you on that basis. I find I have more intelligent conversations with a brick wall.

Then perhaps you should confine further discussions with brick walls instead of castigating people in this thread for making a genuine attempt to better understand the myriad of legislation they are confronted with.

reply to post by rnaa


Please show me where in all the statutes that an individual is EVER defined as a human being. Despite all that the term individual doesn't even matter when it comes down to if one is liable for income tax. If the sovereigns domicile is not in federal territory then they have no jurisdiction over the sovereign. The sovereign is then considered a "national" (8 USC 1408) and a "nonresident alien" (26 USC 7701(b)(1)(B)) and lives in a "foreign estate" (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31)) which is not operating in "trade or business" (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) and whose domicile is not within the "United States" is not liable.

reply to post by xSe7eNx


Excellent argument. Would like to hear the rebuttal.

Yes, I do not live in the federal jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES, I live in the United States of America in the Sovereign Republic of Wisconsin. I wonder why I am supposedly a federal employee of this corporation?

I am not and will never be ruled by any damn corporation. That in and of itself to be blasphemous against the very nature of my founding fathers.

Sooner or later, the people will awaken from the ignorance that is the standard level of education, the corporation provides for our children.

I am and will always be a sovereign. There is no king or corporation that stands above me.

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.

George Washington

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Then perhaps you should confine further discussions with brick walls instead of castigating people in this thread for making a genuine attempt to better understand the myriad of legislation they are confronted with.

Except you aren't doing that. You are embracing ignorance for ignorance sake.

You are willfully pretending to be ignorant, and rehearsing your inane and patently ridiculous thesis.

There is a big difference between that and 'making a genuine attempt to better understand'.

I don't understand why the vast majority of people have not understood the obvious. The Government is literally having a titty fit at the current time in history because its people are against its policies. They have written their laws and legislation in un-common wording and it confuses the average person. There are too many laws, and folks just feel suffocated. People just want to be free because they know they wont hurt anyone, they just feel this invisible pressure from the government because it makes them feel the government is this mother or father figure that they need approval from just to feel alive. Does this make sense? I think spiritually you can feel the government or authority being a shadow of sorts, and you feel like you don't need it anymore, you have evolved from the sense of having to be told what to feel or think. You are past that state in your life and you just want to take your first REAL deep breath. The current policies are just suffocating. When we see the system of laws here today, we have laws that just make you always have this unexplainable fear sensation just before your about to do anything normal. Even though your intentions are harmless, you feel like you have a chain around your leg and big brother is watching you. There we go... the Government just feels like the big eye on top of the pyramid. No matter where you go, that eye still follows, its weird.

reply to post by rnaa

Except you aren't doing that. You are embracing ignorance for ignorance sake.

Yep, that's right, God forbid someone attempts to actually read that damned code and then admit they don't understand it, because that would just be criminal.

When I first began questioning this code, and I had employers who would insist that it was the law, I would ask them to point me to which section of the code they were talking about, and lo and behold, talk about willfully embracing ignorance. Not only could they not point to any section of the code, they admitted they never even looked. One employer finally had me talk to his tax accountant who also could not point to any section to back up his assertions, the only difference between him and my employer is, much like you, he became antagonistic and finally told me this was between me and my employer and he didn't appreciate being drug in the middle of it.

You are willfully pretending to be ignorant, and rehearsing your inane and patently ridiculous thesis.

If this were actually true, and I have to tell you, if you had even just an inkling of law, I might be inclined to actually take your advice here, but since you don't seem to have a clue, all I can guess is that you have nothing intelligent to say, and so can only offer ad hominem attacks. I sincerely doubt an IRS litigator would come off as stupid as that.

There is a big difference between that and 'making a genuine attempt to better understand'.

Yeah, you wouldn't know genuine if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. I don't at all mind repeating how you first presumed to answer my questions by using data supplied by the ADL, then insisted the burden of proof was upon me, in between this dismissed the Preamble of the Constitution as irrelevant in terms of sovereignty of the people, and when you finally did just offer a section of the code it was some section to do with "wages", and had nothing to do with liability, finally, after much back and forth between us did you admit you didn't know, only then to come back in that same post and offer up the section that you did...and you have the audacity to call me disingenuous.

Hello? Mr. Brick Wall, did you get that? Hello? Uhhhmmm....speakey de English? Mr. Brick Wall? Pffffffttttt!

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Well I think there is plenty of room for sovereign citizen here...

I might not understand the motive, but I don't think it is my place to begrudge anyone for anything related to perception or belief. If this attitude (whatever you call it) started to impact society, I might be concerned, however this world is filled with all types and
I know of no such impact.

The only thing that can be difficult for me here is that my, more traditional outlook
is often met with disrespect, like am an unintelligent square of sorts. I dish it out plenty myself so cannot complain really, I am sure I am not alone...

As a small annoyance it makes the foundation and terminology of a discussion
cumbersome, this is because I have to understand so much that does not grace my
perception, which is difficult. I also find myself abandoning my personal beliefs
to get a meatier interaction... Being one to invite a different paradigm in can create
a slow pressure build and occasionally I have a hard time hearing how screwed up
my logic and beliefs are. My silence, lack of defense or not presenting my views is not always because I do not believe in myself; it is because I actually enjoy learning about concepts that are foreign to me. Unfortunately you cannot learn so well when you are fighting and positioning for the next round. Undoubtably ego is a real phenomena...

The thing we all need to remember is this nation was built to endured difference, the FBI
might just want to earn their pay for once, focus makes a job more gratifying. Sometimes when business is slow you need to find things, sometimes that means scrubbing behind the toilet.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red

It is with ardent appeal that I write in application of your for your Development and Special Events Internship Program.

Oh my God! Did you just compare the sovereignty movement to the crap behind a toilet? I don't know whether to laugh or to cry, and sadly I am doing both at this moment. That is a rapier pen you wield Janky.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

It is with ardent appeal that I write in application of your for your Development and Special Events Internship Program.

Oh my God! Did you just compare the sovereignty movement to the crap behind a toilet? I don't know whether to laugh or to cry, and sadly I am doing both at this moment. That is a rapier pen you wield Janky.

My apologies

NO

I mean when "business" dies down (FBI) sometimes you have to find things to do just to keep busy (targeting)

I am laughing now because I added that last part to clarify my position, which is "FBI why don't you layoff some people or defend the boarder or something?".

I must be part pirate, I think sometimes I still add a bit too much fence to the plume...

DAAAR!

reply to post by Janky Red


That is actually what I thought you meant, but then I kept reading it and reading it and finally went: "Heyyyyyyyy!" That's the beauty of words, no? They are so open to interpretation. Thanks for joining us in this horrid fray.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

That is actually what I thought you meant, but then I kept reading it and reading it and finally went: "Heyyyyyyyy!" That's the beauty of words, no? They are so open to interpretation. Thanks for joining us in this horrid fray.

Well a little secret, that will no longer remain a secret ( and is probably completely obvious to anyone with a four grade education) is that ATS has serve a dual role in my life, in that Janky applied most of his academic reserves to the art of courtship. ( I love third person sometimes)

In short, I decided ATS was a great way to make up for the severe lack of pen wielding years prior. This has produced an impressionistic take on writing and the science that
should accompany any reasonable attempt to do so properly. My early attempts
likely read like a Neanderthal translating George Carlinese into Turrets while being stationed at the end of a game of Telephone.

It sure is rawkus in this joint, no doubt. If I had a stake in the fight, I would be biting by now...

On Topic

I am starting to understand the concepts more, contrary to what I initially thought,
these ideas are not based upon evil... There are many ideas I now associate with
the paradigm that many lefties could utilize in their personal lives, if practiced by everyone, could really create fulfillment in this country...
Self determination is my favorite;

BTW the way you demonstrated such in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

AWESOME!

To go further, the introduction to these Sovereign notions has really helped me see the disfunction in some specific Lefty ideas. However I will admit; the same result has occurred in examining some Sovereign ideas... As I told you months ago, I have a hard time with extremes in general, no matter the extreme-

Personally, there is a negative impact which is;
I no longer have a defined blueprint or set of "rules" to apply to the world of humans
and their interactions. Each solution seems to stimulate other problems by my calculations... I have deconstructed so much, sometimes I can swear I see the strings
being pulled, the paint dripping off of the freshly painted facade that was once a simple world for me.

The one thing that is a constant belief, is the beauty and necessity in the cognodiversity
that comprises America. I see any attempt to silence or oppress ideas as an attempt upon myself and my ideas. I guess, in this way, I am truly a socialist; we share the ethos, no man shall go without a piece, even if nothing merits or validates his share.

I look forward to the day when I can truly understand these ideas and apply the
derived wisdom to my own travels.





[edit on 3-5-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Janky Red]

No man is an island. Yet no society is a collective.

I am not Borg, you will not assimilate me.

If our forefathers began this society throwing off the very controls that many find so repugnant in this day and age, what will be the outcome? It is an immovable entity being subjected to an immense force. There will be the inevitable result, stalemate.

Be it more of the same or a new awakening.

As a poster a few comments back placed an analogy of the all seeing eye. It is exactly like they stated, it is suppression of free will. It is the suppression of individual rights, not for the betterment of all, but the perception of a equality.

The world has created this supposed umbrella of protection, for our best interests. I do not know many that feel there is any such protection. It feels more like an overpowering dread.

One can never just exist, one must continually slave to hold back the tide. I feel like Sisyphus, if I falter at all, the rock will crush me. And if I do falter, there will be hell (gov) to pay.

How many years must one now toil to make themselves a nest egg to survive the waning years of one's life. I know it is directly proportional to the amount of taxes one pays. If the gov currently taxes us at an effective rate of 50-75% of ones earnings, does that NOT mean you have to work twice to three times as long or as hard, to reach the same level as when this evil system had never existed.

We no longer own our very property. Allodial Title. We no longer own our very conveyance. License, registration, insurance. We no longer own our very body. Illegality of substances. We no longer own our very voices. Free speech zones. We no longer own our right to assemble. Making militias equivalent to gangs!

I am and will always be a peaceful man, until the day I am backed into a corner that control parameters have made impossible, to make any other choice.

Cannot freedom lovers and government coexist? For if I chose one to survive, do not be so sure it would be government that I chose.

Freedom of one's economic life is just as important as one's social life, that is why I am a diehard libertarian.

I will choose freedom over security EVERY time.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

As many have said before, give me freedom or give me death. I do not fear death, for it is just another transition. It is just another state of being.

Do you fear, for that is what they use to control you.