Are you a Sovereign or a Citizen?

reply to post by Lilitu


Ever since they named Ron Paul supporters and oathkeepers "hate groups", they lost all credibility in my eyes.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


...speaking on the subject of "sovereign citizens"

“These people really seem to feel that filing certain kinds of legal papers that are connected to their theories will somehow also magically have the power to alter relationships and grant things that otherwise would be unobtainable,” he said.

AP source

I think that pretty much sums up my views of this subject... It's a wonderful fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.

~Heff

Dream on. If buying into this mental self-abuse makes you feel better, by all means indulge yourself. Nobody else believes it. Certainly the courts do not. And I certainly wouldn't advertise the fact you think so because that does put you in a whole different category as far as law enforcement is concerned. Soverigns have already proven they are capable of killing people for no good reason. What you are telling me is that you consider yourself above the law. Thinking like that can lead to some pretty stupid decisions and I, for one, don't want to be anywhere near people like that when they make them.

What you're indulging in here is a semantic fantasy that does not change your legal status one bit anywhere. You have the same status in the legal system. You have the same obligations. Your property is listed the same way in the county records office. It makes not one whit of difference.

The only difference is in attitude, and that's the scary part. In this country, save for Timothy McVeigh, violence is owned by the left. Every riot, every disturbance, every bombing (-1) has been initiated by the left. Oh, they blame the right for a 'climate of violence,' but if you look at the facts, it's people like William Ayers who have planted the bombs at police stations. Leftist goons have trashed small businesses in the wake of riots. "Smash the State" has been the mantra of the left for a century.

Then the soverign 'movement' comes along and gives credence to the idea that right wing violence is just around the corner. Reminiscent of the militias that have been quiet for a few years, people stockpiling bullets for some sort of paltry doomed-to-failure revolution that only they believe in.

Last post because I'm not here to argue back and forth with you. I'm just presenting my point of view. I know my words won't change your views on anything. I don't expect that for you are enamored with your philosophical meanderings into a netherworld of your own making. I'm just saying that were you to put any sort of plans into effect, you will have resistance not only from the government, which already has its wary eye on you for good reason, but also from ordinary citizens like me, who are just as well armed as you are. So I really hope you keep your movement on philosophical grounds because anything else is doomed to failure.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Just because they make enough of a nuisance of themselves that the court decides it’s not worth the effort to prosecute doesn’t mean there is any legal merit in the defence. You could come up with any nonsense and get the same result.

reply to post by Mike_A


Well, there are components of the sovereign citizens maneuvers that are perfectly legal maneuvers.

I was watching a video of a lawyer in New York that was using some of the techniques. He had all kinds of cases dismissed.

A lot of it has to do with documentation and contractual obligations that were failed to be met.

Hey, just because the head of a fish is not very appetizing, does not mean I throw away the whole fish.

Hey, I just made up a new............parable..........no, that is not the right word.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Like what?

If they’re using genuine legal arguments then they’re not really “sovereign citizens’ manoeuvres” and lends nothing to the movement as a whole.

reply to post by WJjeeper


I am a Sovereign Citizen of the Republic of Ohio, and represent myself as such at all times. I sign my Driver's License with "su juris U-CC-207" and my Automobile Registration with "Under Duress, All rights Reserved." A criminal courts judge saw that on my license last year and promptly dismissed a traffic ticket, asking the Officer, "Didn't you look at his license and see that?" When a police officer stops me, I ask him or her, "are you a Peace Officer, or a Policy Enforcer"? They always act with respect after that.

reply to post by autowrench


But do you have any legal documentation to back up the legal principles that you profess or is it just the case that the police/court sees your licence and thinks “oh not one of those again, I can’t deal with this today, move along”?

There are no words to describe this nonsense.

I would like to ask you so called “sovereign citizens” one thing though: assuming this status is real, and if all it takes to be a sovereign citizen is to for someone to declare him or herself as such, what’s to to stop, let’s say, illegal aliens from declaring themselves sovereign citizens and be immune from US law, as you’re apparently asserting you are?

Originally posted by Mike_A
Is this related to that freeman bull?

U.S. Citizen/Subject – A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “strawman.” When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract

…

In 1845, Congress passed legislation that would ultimately allow Common Law to be usurped by Admiralty Law.

Can I see a recognised legal document, an actual piece of legislation, which states either of these things?

i will have to take a hit here and say i dont have any actual legal documents that provide the information of common law being usurped. HOWEVER, if you read the link i posted you would see that there are multiple court cases which show that common law has been usurped by admiralty law.

Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al

Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481

Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652

under the Uniform Commercial code - The common law does not control contracts that are primarily for the sale of goods. Contracts for the sale of goods are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a standardized collection of guidelines that govern the law of commercial transactions. Most states have adopted the UCC in whole or in part, making the UCC's provisions part of the state's codified laws pertaining to the sale of goods.

there is no CLEAR or absolute document or legislation that shows our common law has in fact been usurped by admiralty. however, there is many cases which show the power of admiralty/ international law usurping that of the sovereigns common law. (my sources above)

Here is a court case in which a sovereign dismisses his own case after the judge leaves the courtroom. Felt this might be helpful and add to the discussion.

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Lilitu

 

Do you really believe what SPLC has to say about stuff?

Yes. The SPLC is a top-notch civil rights group. That said, I can understand why you don't think much of them.

Sorry but the other responses I received were simply too asinine to respond to. Come back to reality, then, perhaps, we can have a discussion. Funny though how many of you replied with leading questions. Just like religious cultists who seek to ensnare and deceive.

Oh and here's a little something from your good friends at the FBI.

Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement

Being "Sovereign", I know you're not afraid to follow that link.

edit on 15-1-2011 by Lilitu because: (no reason given)

so, simply because we feel we should be free from taxation and oppression from a tyrannical government who signed its people off as slaves... were terrorists?

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

Not at all. What I am saying is that, for a good laugh, Google "sovereign citizen + court cases" and then realize just now misinformed this particular movement is.

~Heff

If you look into this in detail you will find that it is not the movement which is ill informed, but you. This is one more area of the duplicity which has gone on. This is true.

Originally posted by MKULTRA
Here is a court case in which a sovereign dismisses his own case after the judge leaves the courtroom. Felt this might be helpful and add to the discussion.

GREAT VIDEO MK! made my day!

reply to post by MKULTRA


This video shows only a man confusing or flustering a judge and then walking out of the courthouse and leaving while court is recessed.

This does nothing at all to speak to the inevitable bench warrant which was surely filed once court resumed session. Do you have any more information about this defendant or the disposition of his charges? Without that, this entire video shows showboating but no contextual information.

~Heff

reply to post by autowrench


Let's see the court transcripts please. By all means feel free to blot out any personal identifying information.

While the rest of you are waiting for what won't happen, here is an interesting article by an expert on the sovereign citizens movement linking Jared Loughner to the movement.


Jared Lee Loughner: Lost in Translation

Originally posted by Hefficide
This does nothing at all to speak to the inevitable bench warrant which was surely filed once court resumed session.

Assumption not in evidence. If you have evidence that illustrates your statement above is NOT an assumption but rather is a fact in evidence, please provide it.

Do you have any more information about this defendant or the disposition of his charges? Without that, this entire video shows showboating but no contextual information.

~Heff

The entire video is a legal situation until the sovereign exits the courtroom. The sovereign dismissed the case in the courtroom, therefore, the charges no longer exist. I have no further information regarding the context of the sovereign. If you'd like to counter these claims, please provide evidence to support your thesis.

reply to post by WJjeeper




I’m afraid I can’t follow the argument in your link; the lack of context for the extracts is very problematic.

Could you put it in your own words?

under the Uniform Commercial code - The common law does not control contracts that are primarily for the sale of goods. Contracts for the sale of goods are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a standardized collection of guidelines that govern the law of commercial transactions. Most states have adopted the UCC in whole or in part, making the UCC's provisions part of the state's codified laws pertaining to the sale of goods.

I don’t see the significance.

Common law is a system by which law is developed through precedence in the courts, as opposed to statute law which is what I think the UCC would come under which is developed and codified by a legislative body.

To say that something is covered by a statute rather than a precedent isn’t important; common law is no more legitimate or “innate” than statute law.

I think this is a major problem in both the sovereignty movement (based on my past 20minutes of research!) and the freemen movement in the UK. They both appear to be hung up on the idea of common law as a distinct set of laws in themselves rather than the system of creating laws that they actually are. In reality admiralty law can’t usurp common law because the former is a specific set of laws and the latter is the means by which the law is developed. In fact in theory one could have a law that comes under the banner “admiralty law” and common law, as it may have been developed via a court precedent in relation to maritime matters.

They also suffer from using old statutes and rulings that may or may not be in force; I don’t know whether any of those used in your link fall into this trap but when looking at cases from 1850 it’s worth keeping in mind.

However, of the OP what I was most interested was this:

U.S. Citizen/Subject – A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “strawman.” When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract

Is there any legislation to back this up?

Originally posted by WJjeeper

Sovereign – A real person.

A "sovereign" by definition cannot be a person. There is specific legal language that must be used. A "person" can be lumped in with a corporate entity. If you are a corporate entity, you are not sovereign.

reply to post by Alethea


From what little I understand about this, it is the language is used against us. We are told we are a person/people from birth. It is hard to not think of ourself that way. I think soviergn = living being. Person = name on BC = our strawman corporation name.

Isn't it pretty odd how law seems to be written in a totally different language than we speak though? I thought it was designed that way to force us to hire lawyers. Makes me wonder sometimes.