Are you a Sovereign or a Citizen?

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Again, wrong. How did Tim Turner get to be President of the Republic? The members of the Republic elected him to that position, that's how.

I see. That's how I was elected Supreme Ruler of the Universe. The Galaxy has spoken.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I appreciate your sarcasm oh buddha, even though I was being serious. The Grand Juries and other sovereigns really did have an election, and they really did elect Tim Turner to be the [Interim] President of the Republic.

Now, does that make him President of the US Corporation? No, Obama still has that spot. Though maybe not for much longer....

tdarkcabal.blogspot.com...

These events will all become clear very shortly, as the Corporation is not expected to last past the first quarter of this year since they are bankrupt and insolvent. Just watch!

Originally posted by WJjeeper
In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. HOWEVER! you CAN lose your sovereignty under a republic. in a trial by jury, IF 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.

I guess it's my turn to do an Ad Hitlerum, which I often criticize people of using.

And so, I see that weirdness just keeps piling up. Under that definition Nazi Germany was a perfect republic, because yes you voted to representatives, and COULD disagree with the "majority", then your "sovereignty" was waived by some kind of tribunal and you would end up in a death camp. Brilliant.

And in that paragraph of yours, in the very end... Don't you see the sinister specter of ENFORCEMENT? That same thing against which the "sovereigns" protest so vehemently... So a person loses sovereignty under that scheme of things, and then somebody will need to inflict violence on him/her to enforce the jury decision.

What's the freaking difference? The whole shebang sounds incredibly infantile.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by WJjeeper
In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. HOWEVER! you CAN lose your sovereignty under a republic. in a trial by jury, IF 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.

I guess it's my turn to do an Ad Hitlerum, which I often criticize people of using.

And so, I see that weirdness just keeps piling up. Under that definition Nazi Germany was a perfect republic, because yes you voted to representatives, and COULD disagree with the "majority", then your "sovereignty" was waived by some kind of tribunal and you would end up in a death camp. Brilliant.

And in that paragraph of yours, in the very end... Don't you see the sinister specter of ENFORCEMENT? That same thing against which the "sovereigns" protest so vehemently... So a person loses sovereignty under that scheme of things, and then somebody will need to inflict violence on him/her to enforce the jury decision.

What's the freaking difference? The whole shebang sounds incredibly infantile.

damn, youve got head crammed up there pretty far huh?

First of all Nazi Germany was a totalitarian fascist state, Hitler WAS NOT elected into office as chancellor of germany. He was chosen and emplaced in power by von Hindenberg because he had more popular support than the current Chancellor at that time, von Papan. read this article - www.fff.org...

Hitler was head of the National Socialist party - lets look at what a socialist government is.

Socialism- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Source- dictionary.reference.com...

Second of all, sovereigns do not protest enforcement of the Common Law. Sovereigns protest and deny the enforcement of corporate law and admiralty law upon the individual(s) whom have not greed to submit to those laws.

Im not going to waste to much energy on this, simply because I know you will most likely attempt to twist everything I say to conform to your own agenda.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
First of all Nazi Germany was a totalitarian fascist state

Oh really? Interesting. All right kidding, I already hinted that I posted Ad Hitlerum in a jest. However,

wiki.answers.com...

Hitler became Führer (Supreme Leader) on August 2, 1934: he'd been Chancellor of Germany since January 30, 1933. Very technically, Hitler was never actually elected, but he did take power legally under the laws of the then-Weimar Republic, which he almost immediately abolished. Until Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis never held an actual majority in the government and the parliament.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor under President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, as part of a coalition government originally intended to hold the wobbly democracy together, but Hitler wanted no democracy and engineered things so that President Hindenburg was forced to dissolve parliament and hold new elections. Using violence and anti-Communist hysteria to their advantage, on election day, March 6, 1933, the Nazis increased their result to 44% of the vote, making them the largest party in Germany, but still not giving them an absolute majority. Nevertheless, continuing to use violence or the threat of it, plus clever political subterfuge, Hitler consolidated his power in the parliament until he had successfully, and apparently legally, suppressed all the other political parties.

When Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler's cabinet passed a law transferring the power of the presidency to Hitler as both Chancellor and Führer (Leader). In mid-August a plebiscite was held, and 85% of the people voted to sustain Hitler as supreme leader of the state, people and military. Hitler could no longer be legally challenged.

So there was a pretty good semblance of the legal process in all that.

Second of all, sovereigns do not protest enforcement of the Common Law. Sovereigns protest and deny the enforcement of corporate law and admiralty law upon the individual(s) whom have not greed to submit to those laws.

Oh, forgive me for talking it with a huge grain of salt. I saw videos of "sovereigns" in these and other threads, and basically it's an authority-defying bunch which to me looks and sounds anarchist. If a sovereign gets a traffic ticket from whatever galactic republic or confederation, he'll be royally p!ssed and look, don't doubt won't just take a "De Jure" decision about the fine too well.

Are you serious about ENFORCEMENT being unnecessary under whatever elected republic? You are asking me to ignore 10,000 years of human history and sorry, I'm not doing that.

Im not going to waste to much energy on this, simply because I know you will most likely attempt to twist everything I say to conform to your own agenda.

Dude, my agenda is to keep real. When I read some fantastical proposals like abolition of birth certificates and all, sorry I just find this laughable. And seriously, I think firefighters and the police should not be protecting people who don't pay taxes out of spite for the govt.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by WJjeeper
First of all Nazi Germany was a totalitarian fascist state

Oh really? Interesting. All right kidding, I already hinted that I posted Ad Hitlerum in a jest. However,

wiki.answers.com...

Hitler became Führer (Supreme Leader) on August 2, 1934: he'd been Chancellor of Germany since January 30, 1933. Very technically, Hitler was never actually elected, but he did take power legally under the laws of the then-Weimar Republic, which he almost immediately abolished. Until Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis never held an actual majority in the government and the parliament.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor under President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, as part of a coalition government originally intended to hold the wobbly democracy together, but Hitler wanted no democracy and engineered things so that President Hindenburg was forced to dissolve parliament and hold new elections. Using violence and anti-Communist hysteria to their advantage, on election day, March 6, 1933, the Nazis increased their result to 44% of the vote, making them the largest party in Germany, but still not giving them an absolute majority. Nevertheless, continuing to use violence or the threat of it, plus clever political subterfuge, Hitler consolidated his power in the parliament until he had successfully, and apparently legally, suppressed all the other political parties.

When Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler's cabinet passed a law transferring the power of the presidency to Hitler as both Chancellor and Führer (Leader). In mid-August a plebiscite was held, and 85% of the people voted to sustain Hitler as supreme leader of the state, people and military. Hitler could no longer be legally challenged.

So there was a pretty good semblance of the legal process in all that.

Second of all, sovereigns do not protest enforcement of the Common Law. Sovereigns protest and deny the enforcement of corporate law and admiralty law upon the individual(s) whom have not greed to submit to those laws.

Oh, forgive me for talking it with a huge grain of salt. I saw videos of "sovereigns" in these and other threads, and basically it's an authority-defying bunch which to me looks and sounds anarchist. If a sovereign gets a traffic ticket from whatever galactic republic or confederation, he'll be royally p!ssed and look, don't doubt won't just take a "De Jure" decision about the fine too well.

Are you serious about ENFORCEMENT being unnecessary under whatever elected republic? You are asking me to ignore 10,000 years of human history and sorry, I'm not doing that.

Im not going to waste to much energy on this, simply because I know you will most likely attempt to twist everything I say to conform to your own agenda.

Dude, my agenda is to keep real. When I read some fantastical proposals like abolition of birth certificates and all, sorry I just find this laughable. And seriously, I think firefighters and the police should not be protecting people who don't pay taxes out of spite for the govt.

well I see your point of view, but a sovereign would belong to a state which would be considered its own sovereign republic. sovereigns would pay sales tax or whatever kind of taxes that state has deemed necessary the states would then authorize how much $ the "Republic of the USA" gets.

Also never said Enforcement of laws is unnecessary, I said sovereigns (which I dont claim to be if you read my first post) only adhere to the Common Law, which is the only law that they have agreed to be ruled by (because we have the right to choose what/whom rules us)

P.S. I never said anything about abolition of birth certificates, I do feel that there could be a better birth monitoring system in place, where you only have to prove that you were born in a certain state, and that certain state would then deal with a social security system (to be ran by each state individually, within a national DATABANK) instead of having an all powerful system like the SSA.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
well I see your point of view, but a sovereign would belong to a state which would be considered its own sovereign republic. sovereigns would pay sales tax or whatever kind of taxes that state has deemed necessary the states would then authorize how much $ the "Republic of the USA" gets.

Hi there WJ,

I have a problem with the word "belong", simply because 1/3 of rhetoric in "sovereign" movement and this thread, and the very word "sovereign" indeed, implies that you don't belong to nobody. So there is a gap in logic right there.

The rest of your statement, it seems to me, is a secessionist call to a loose confederation of States. I don't think that's a good idea, personally.

Also never said Enforcement of laws is unnecessary, I said sovereigns (which I dont claim to be if you read my first post) only adhere to the Common Law, which is the only law that they have agreed to be ruled by (because we have the right to choose what/whom rules us)

As Wikipedia says,

Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages

You see, I don't understand why Common Law is in significant way superior to other law systems that may exist in a democratic society. OK, it's old and has its root in Middle Ages. This doesn't mean it addresses all and many of facets of our lives that originated since and after the times they used to burn witches at stakes.

P.S. I never said anything about abolition of birth certificates, I do feel that there could be a better birth monitoring system in place, where you only have to prove that you were born in a certain state, and that certain state would then deal with a social security system (to be ran by each state individually, within a national DATABANK) instead of having an all powerful system like the SSA.

Ironically, you contradict yourself in a dramatic way with the last one. You are proposing a NATIONAL DATABANK, which would be an usurpation of State's right by the Union (which you oppose). Apart from this, you call for "being able to prove" -- but hey, that means certified paperwork, i.e. the certificate. So you suggested very little if anything -- then the hardcore "sovereigns" are quite categorical in their rejection of certs and even call for their own passports (I always thought that cereal boxes are nice and sturdy and can be put to a good use, such as jackets for handwritten passports).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by WJjeeper
well I see your point of view, but a sovereign would belong to a state which would be considered its own sovereign republic. sovereigns would pay sales tax or whatever kind of taxes that state has deemed necessary the states would then authorize how much $ the "Republic of the USA" gets.

Hi there WJ,

I have a problem with the word "belong", simply because 1/3 of rhetoric in "sovereign" movement and this thread, and the very word "sovereign" indeed, implies that you don't belong to nobody. So there is a gap in logic right there.

The rest of your statement, it seems to me, is a secessionist call to a loose confederation of States. I don't think that's a good idea, personally.

Also never said Enforcement of laws is unnecessary, I said sovereigns (which I dont claim to be if you read my first post) only adhere to the Common Law, which is the only law that they have agreed to be ruled by (because we have the right to choose what/whom rules us)

As Wikipedia says,

Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages

You see, I don't understand why Common Law is in significant way superior to other law systems that may exist in a democratic society. OK, it's old and has its root in Middle Ages. This doesn't mean it addresses all and many of facets of our lives that originated since and after the times they used to burn witches at stakes.

P.S. I never said anything about abolition of birth certificates, I do feel that there could be a better birth monitoring system in place, where you only have to prove that you were born in a certain state, and that certain state would then deal with a social security system (to be ran by each state individually, within a national DATABANK) instead of having an all powerful system like the SSA.

Ironically, you contradict yourself in a dramatic way with the last one. You are proposing a NATIONAL DATABANK, which would be an usurpation of State's right by the Union (which you oppose). Apart from this, you call for "being able to prove" -- but hey, that means certified paperwork, i.e. the certificate. So you suggested very little if anything -- then the hardcore "sovereigns" are quite categorical in their rejection of certs and even call for their own passports (I always thought that cereal boxes are nice and sturdy and can be put to a good use, such as jackets for handwritten passports).

First of all, there wouldnt be a Union to interfere with the lives of sovereigns, our central government would be a republic. when I say Natl databank, I mean for the states to hold individually (like stated) and collaborate this information when necessary(extradition procedures, Natl disaster). I dont see the contradiction there (getting rid of the SSA and whatnot).

like stated before, the english language is quite screwy when it comes to legal terms... I find myself frequently using the wrong terms or verbage, which can miscontrue the points at hand. on another note! Common law is definetly superior,Ill attempt to explain why without "contradicting" myself.

common law derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence( the philosophy of the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do ) originated in England and was later adopted in the U.S. that is based on PRECEDENT ( An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances) instead of statutory laws. Basically this rids the individuals of arbitrary laws that impede upon ones right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I should do an essay on this for my PoliSci class!

so, why exactly are you so against individual sovereignty? do you enjoy the thought of being collateral for a governments wreckless spending? Are you amused at the thought of watching a government power unequivocally steal rights away from individuals? because Ive met plenty of people that enjoy all these things (etremo leftist liberal wackos A.K.A. socialists)

Two years now.

I will no longer contract with the government.

Yes, they may get me, but they may not.

So far I have not paid their registration or their licensing fees.

Now, if they pull me over if I break one of their statutes, they will have to pay to prosecute me. It is kind of a Cloward Piven type component. Will they actually gain anything? No, they will use their resources to attempt to enforce their draconian laws.

Tell you what, it is WORTH EVERY MOMENT!

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Two years now.

I will no longer contract with the government.

Yes, they may get me, but they may not.

So far I have not paid their registration or their licensing fees.

Now, if they pull me over if I break one of their statutes, they will have to pay to prosecute me. It is kind of a Cloward Piven type component. Will they actually gain anything? No, they will use their resources to attempt to enforce their draconian laws.

Tell you what, it is WORTH EVERY MOMENT!

I plan to invest in gold and lots of real estate. when I make enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of my life, ill sell everything and declare myself a sovereign individual. then ill probably buy some crappy little property in the middle of nowhere... and ill build a moat around my house. lets see the IRS get around a moat!- just kidding.

so what would be the most effective way to declare myself a sovereign away from the Federal Gov. of the USA? it seems like you have to abandon your life and restart to truly be a sovereign.

and heres a thought! if about 4 - 5 million people declared themselves sovereign at one single time, the united states corp. would literally go broke and would be forced to default on its loans. then everyone would see the truth come out! it makes me wonder how the fed would collect its collateral?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Two years now. I will no longer contract with the government. Yes, they may get me, but they may not.
So far I have not paid their registration or their licensing fees.

Now, if they pull me over if I break one of their statutes, they will have to pay to prosecute me. It is kind of a Cloward Piven type component. Will they actually gain anything? No, they will use their resources to attempt to enforce their draconian laws.

Tell you what, it is WORTH EVERY MOMENT!

en.wikipedia.org...

The film originally included a scene in which Kane reads aloud comically "It says here that I'm good under pressure," while holding a Sports Illustrated college football preview issue with him on the front cover. He then lies down the middle of a road on the yellow line as cars barely pass him at highway speeds. Several team members who are at first trying to stop Kane decide that it is a test of their bravery and team unity and join him. Influenced by the film, several teenagers imitated this scene and were either killed or suffered injuries.

Funny you'll get a kick out of screwing up your life, out of spite. If they find it's "aggravated", you can spend a year upstate. You'll sing "draconian" every day.

Question, what do they gain out of prosecuting you? Answer: removing an irresponsible person from our roads. Priceless. Besides, you are not paying for these roads anyhow, freeloader.

WJ, I've seen a lot of loonies and some dumb people on here, but you are neither. So excuse my sarcasm, I just think you are misguided.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
First of all, there wouldnt be a Union to interfere with the lives of sovereigns, our central government would be a republic.

Again, republic or not, it's a body that governs. If it governs, it "interferes" with lives by definition.

when I say Natl databank, I mean for the states to hold individually (like stated) and collaborate this information when necessary(extradition procedures, Natl disaster).

But that sort of thing already exists. The "republic" site calls for abolition of ANY birth certificates altogether. So I guess you deeply disagree with them (good for you).

Common law is definetly superior,Ill attempt to explain why without "contradicting" myself.

common law derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence( the philosophy of the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do ) originated in England and was later adopted in the U.S. that is based on PRECEDENT ( An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances) instead of statutory laws. Basically this rids the individuals of arbitrary laws that impede upon ones right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I should do an essay on this for my PoliSci class!

Look, "immemorial practice" (strange phrase but so be it) is a poor excuse. Slavery and human sacrifice have been a tradition for literally millenia which doesn't make them sane or acceptable. The reason that you resort to this shows the weakness of the argument on your side. Further, it's purely historical that America ended up being populated by ex-Brits. Hence, the Common Law. Purely incidental. Further, it's not less arbitrary than any other law.

And on a completely different level, it's simply insufficient for actual function of our society. One example is Corporate Law (which is about as old as Common Law), without which we can't create and run corporations.

You should work harder on your PoliSci material.

being collateral for a governments wreckless spending?

...and spelling skills!

eminent domain makes it impossible for the true sovereign to exist. We are all just citizens

reply to post by cupocoffee


Actually, I have corresponded with the Restore America Plan, but as yet I don't see them really doing anything. Turner is a bit too religious for my personal tastes, but what the hell, if a christian can save America and bring her back to Constitutional values, so be it. What got be started was that I am a Free Spirit from the very start, and I first came onto being a Sovereign reading the story of the Montana Freemen, Howard Freeman and company.

Note: The original link www.freedomdomain.com... for this quote is no longer on the net.

How would you like to be TORTURED For Knowing the Truth and teaching it? The Montana Freemen are Political Prisoners who are currently being tortured in jail and may possibly die at any time because of public ignorance of the true law and lack of real de jure Americans. The government does not bring in the BATF, SWAT teams and Military because a few guys are writing bad checks and stole a news crew camera!! The Powers-that-be do not want you to know this!! The Freemen were teaching people how to TAKE BACK GOVERNMENT at the local level. They did two important things : 1. Re-Discovered the supreme Court in the county. This is the highest court in the land, not the Appelate branch Supreme court in the State. There are no lawyers, it’s the private side, not the corporate side. The supreme Court justice is appointed, not elected, & they are not government employees with social security #’s!! This is the venue of the People’s court of original jurisdiction. The Problem has been that the people fell asleep, forgot there are two forms of government operating side by side, private and contract/commercial, or Equity, and by virtue of the social security #, birth certificate etc., which are contracts, most people today are in a joint-venture capacity with the State, which is a corporation, thus making them employees of the Corporation, and therefore taxable. This has created a dilemma whereby the people have become agents of the agency and have lost their true status as a Principle, who, in contract law, always remains above the agent. The People are the original government, and the public servants in government are our agents! So the Freemen did what any morally upstanding people would do when the people they hired to uphold the constitution failed to do their job, that is, they had to return to self-governing, which means if the people you hire to do a job don’t do it, you don’t ask them if you can do the job yourself, YOU DO IT!! They were uncontracted Free Americans who had every right to do what they did, we are a self-governing Nation. And the second important thing they did was break the secret code of the commercial banking system, which is this : All credit is creating through the lien process, which is the basis for the commercial credit system. The private credit monopoly, better known as the international bankers do not want this known. The bankers have a lien on the people, the chattel property, of the United States, who are under martial law as of 1861 and bankrupt as of 1933. So the Freemen placed liens on government officials who failed to uphold their sworn oath and duty of their office. These liens went uncontested and amounted to a total of 17 trillion dollars credit. Next, the Freemen started to pay off the credit debt of the people of the United States in their certified money orders backed by their newly created credit. This would have eliminated the income tax for all Americans!! This worked for years and was not the reason the government came after them. The siege began when they issued arrest warrents for corrupt public officials!! The Freemen are being held at the following location. All mail and visits are being denied to them. They are routinely being tortured and beaten. PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND LET THEM KNOW that you know the truth and aren’t willing to allow this to happen!! To show support for Leroy Schweitzer contact him at : Leroy Michael; Schweitzer (02144-046) c/o FDC SeaTac , P.O. Box 68976, Seattle, Washington state, 98168 --- To Complain to the Warden about their treatment and illegal incarceration write to : SeaTac Detention Facility, ATTN Warden Perrill P.O. Box 68168 Seattle Washington, 98168

reply to post by autowrench

So the Freemen placed liens on government officials who failed to uphold their sworn oath and duty of their office. These liens went uncontested and amounted to a total of 17 trillion dollars credit

I hereby place a lien on you, in the amount of $1000. Don't try to contest it. Heck, while I am at it, I also place a $10,000 lien on Obama. He won't contest, I'm sure.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I hereby place a lien on you, in the amount of $1000. Don't try to contest it. Heck, while I am at it, I also place a $10,000 lien on Obama. He won't contest, I'm sure.

You are showing exactly how silly these so called "sovereign citizens" and their claims actually are!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I hereby place a lien on you, in the amount of $1000. Don't try to contest it. Heck, while I am at it, I also place a $10,000 lien on Obama. He won't contest, I'm sure.

You are showing exactly how silly these so called "sovereign citizens" and their claims actually are!

if you took time to actually read the thread you would know that sovereigns dont proclaim themselves as "citizens"... if your going to jump into an arguement, know your facts.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
if you took time to actually read the thread you would know that sovereigns dont proclaim themselves as "citizens"... if your going to jump into an arguement, know your facts.

Sovereigns shmovereigns, facts shmacts.

reply to post by buddhasystem



my, my quite the authoritarienne, aren't you?.

have you seen the state of those roads and highways lately? and the rest of the collapsing infrastructure?

funny, how you accuse others of being freeloaders, in my experience those who are the most vehement about "everybody paying their fair share" are usually those who have the most to gain from it.

what part of: "no taxation without representation" are you not clear on?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
have you seen the state of those roads and highways lately? and the rest of the collapsing infrastructure?

Yes Sir, and that's because the governments all over the country are hamstrung and can't really invest in a better infrastructure all across the board. Thing is, the "sovereigns" and the rest of the shmucks don't recognize the need to organize, to pay taxes and to govern. Hence, crippled infrastructure. Heck, and I thought it was obvious.

funny, how you accuse others of being freeloaders, in my experience those who are the most vehement about "everybody paying their fair share" are usually those who have the most to gain from it.

I pay a LOT in taxes. Tons. Likely, loads more than many of the worthless shmucks here. I subsidize the lazy, the stupid and many others (not sure if you fall in any of these categories but hell you never know).