More propaganda targetting the sovereignty movement

Originally posted by petrus4]
No, it wasn't. God isn't something we can talk about empirically.

So are you willing to say, then, that the two things which the Constitution and the Magna Carta have in common, is that they are agreements?

No, I was trying to say that our founders wrote the constitution based off of the previous English magna carta, which was an agreement (sort of) between the representatives of the people and the monarchy. Figure out what happened to produce that and you have the defining ideology which produced the US constitution.

Auto google

So, yea I guess, though I'm sure that's not the only thing they have in common? Why, what did you have in mind?

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by GD21D

 

Of course this is just my perception and I could very well be wrong.

That explains it, you are arguing for a group that you don't even really know about. Read up and come back latter.

Isn't saying that 300,000 people are idiots nothing more than your perception? I was stating that I don't see a person that stands in the court of law claiming sovereignty to exclude themselves from statutes put in place as a threat. Not that I didn't understand the basis of their argument. They have the constitutional right to make whatever political statement they wish, just as you or I do. If you take away their ability to do so, you take away everyone's ability to do so if it doesn't fall in line with what the lawmakers want. But go ahead and take my words out of context.So is it ok for the Federal Government to disregard the Constitution just as these sovereign citizens disregard the laws or statutes? What would be considered more of a threat to the safety and freedom of a countries citizens? I know, these sovereign citizens are getting out of hand. They're looting, rioting, and pillaging everything in sight. I think the MSM is just muddying the waters to what the real issue here is. Just as you are.

They are people who have legally claimed sovereignty from the United States Corporation

Where is the legal basis to be in a country but not subject to it's laws? I don't remember seeing that in the constitution.

reply to post by GD21D

Isn't saying that 300,000 people are idiots nothing more than your perception?

Nope, that is fact.

I was stating that I don't see a person that stands in the court of law claiming sovereignty to exclude themselves from statutes put in place as a threat.

I never said they were a threat, just that they were idiots.

So is it ok for the Federal Government to disregard the Constitution just as these sovereign citizens disregard the laws or statutes?

Can you tell me specifically how the government disregards the constitution SPECIFICALLY in a non-sensationalistic way?

Originally posted by RSF77
So, yea I guess, though I'm sure that's not the only thing they have in common? Why, what did you have in mind?

My point is that I don't understand how state/government law is based on anything other than a] mutual agreement, or b] violence as a means of enforcement, if you don't agree.

People seem to have this idea that governmental authority is inherent. Given how atheistic contemporary society is, the concept is not the divine right of kings, exactly; but in practical terms, it ends up serving the same function. It's just never questioned at all, apparently, but is assumed to be a given.

The other thing that I've realised about government is, that it has been primarily instituted and maintained by psychopaths, who are simply determined to rule other people, no matter what. So you can try and come up with whatever rationale, legal or otherwise, as to why they shouldn't rule you, and they will always seek to refute it. The conservative sheep which infest this forum can claim whatever else they like, but the bottom line is this:-

Government has no legitimate right to exist, period; other than our consent.

The claimed need for "protection," of the public, is one of the oldest Service to Self/psychopathic tricks in the book, and the really sick thing is how large a percentage of the population keep falling for it. The need to protect people from terrorists, the need to protect people from Sadaam Hussein using nuclear or biological weapons, the need to protect children from paedophiles; it is all nothing but a fascist lie, that exists purely in order to coerce the non-psychopathic population, into believing that they need to be ruled by psychopaths.

In my own mind, a sovereign does not truly claim their sovereignty on the basis of God, the Bible, or anything else; they also don't claim it on the basis of any inherent right. They claim it purely on the basis that they refuse to be ruled by psychopaths, to the same uncompromising extent that the psychopaths themselves insist on ruling us. If you are unwilling to be ruled by psychopaths to the point where you are willing to die in order to prevent it, then IMHO, you are by definition sovereign.

You are not a sovereign citizen at all, either. That is a sleight of hand performed by the media. Was a king a citizen? He was not; citizens were by definition his subjects, the clients of a nation state. So the phrase, "sovereign citizen," is an inherent contradiction, and this is by design. The correct term is purely and exclusively, "sovereign," with nothing else attached.

It has nothing inherently to do with the Magna Carta, the Constitution, our supposed divinity, or anything else. Its' basis is purely on the rationale of Patrick Henry, and the will behind it. Give me liberty, or give me death.

reply to post by DavidWillts
You're going to have to give me your interpretation of sensationalistic, otherwise I won't know the parameters of which I'm working within. It doesn't matter though, I get the feeling that the citizens who don't fall in line are wrong, and the Government is ultimately right at all times with you. No argument I make will ever suffice, no matter how good of a point I make. Like I said, I agree with you that some are rather Idiotic and are attempting to skirt the law. Otherwise we should just agree to disagree. This debate between us will just continue to be fruitless.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Sovereign citizens are just jealous of our freedom, democracy, and liberty because they don't have any, that's why they resort to terrorism. It's so obvious, anyone in his or her right mind who hates America hates it because he/she doesn't have any freedom, democracy, or liberty. I think we need to invade Sovereign America and liberate it, as well as frack the hell out of it.

What kind of hate filled speech was that? Don't have any Freedom? Excuse me? Resort to terrorism? Excuse me?

I think we need to invade Sovereign America

Excuse me? That is what happened the last time, in 1861!
Either you are a kid, of you are ignorant to the whole Freedom Movement that has been going on for years now. Educate yourself before making such wild, and unsubstantiated statements.

The Lieber Code of 1863

Freedom Site

Barefoot's World

The Sons of Liberty

THE CONFEDERACY PROJECT

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)

America’s Two Constitutions (One for the Rich, One for the Poor)

Militia Groups, Then, and Now

reply to post by DavidWillts

Perhaps you should read up on Howard Freeman and his group. They formed their own Sovereign Nation, complete with elected government, and went after government officials and IRS agents with the force of the American Common Law, and the UCC, and took down quite a few of them. They were surrounded and taken after 28 days, locked away in a Federal Prison without charges ever being brought.

LeRoy M. Schweitzer, the one-time leader of the Montana Freeman and a dean in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, has died of apparent natural causes in the federal “Supermax” prison in Florence, Colo. The 73-year-old Schweitzer was serving a 22-year federal prison sentence related to crimes prosecuted after the longest police-standoff siege in U.S. history.

Mentally handicapped? Is this man mentally handicapped?
Howard Freeman - THE UCC CONNECTION
Does this one?

reply to post by thehoneycomb

I starred you, thehoneycomb, very well said. I am one who has "pulled that Sovereign crap in a courtroom" and came out smelling like a rose, thank you very much. When one has a full understanding of the Secret Oath, and the corruption of America's court system, and the UCC and American Common Law, one can walk all over these minions who believe themselves to be in power. You are right too, when I first started this, police were not informed, and did not know what to do. I will never forget a State Policemen one day that I ordered, under the Constitution, for him to take my family, and groceries home. He was taken aback at first, then sprang to action.
For those who are damning us, and saying we are all mentally ill, do yourself a favor and learn the Common Law, for one day, it will be the Law of the Land.
I would not give up my personal Sovereignty for a million dollars.

reply to post by DavidWillts

Can you tell me specifically how the government disregards the constitution SPECIFICALLY in a non-sensationalistic way?

I certainly can. Do some reading:
I would say that each of the following acts by the American government was un-Constitutional, and some were outright Treasonous.

The Lieber Code of 1863 CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, REPORTS, AND RETURNS OF THE UNION AUTHORITIES FROM JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1863.
(President Lincoln Declares Martial Law by Presidential Decree, or Edict, both which are against the Constitutional Oath. Lincoln also jailed Congressmen!

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the nation. He assumed the power to close newspapers and in fact closed hundreds of them in the North which dared criticize his policies. He arrested elected officials, including former members of Congress, who opposed him.

source

In Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, Northem troops fired on pro-Southem demonstrators, dispersed legislatures, expelled elected officials and otherwise demonstrated that no respect for constitutional rights or liberties would be shown during the course of the war.

source

Lincoln and the "Writ of Liberty"

The Shadow Government
(Isn't a Constitutional government supposed to be transparent? We never see these guys, all we see are the talking heads)

The Omega Agency
(Probably never heard of these guys, but they exist, and they run practically everything in some way or other)

How the CIA Operates
(Gonna tell me a CIA Field Agent refers to the Constitution every time he/she acts?)

Abolish the Federal Reserve!
(Can I see a show of hands....those who believe the Federal Reserve is Constitutional?)

Structure of the Birth Certificate
(You were sold out to the Federal Reserve at birth! And you are not a Party to the Constitution unless you make a Claim to that effect, and an Understanding of how the Law affects you. The All Caps name on government correspondence and government issued identification is your slave name)

The NSA's ECHELON System
(Is is Constitutional to spy on American Citizens, read their emails, look at what is on their computers remotely?)

Operation Garden Plot
(Show me in the Constitution where this is according to Law?)

They claim the sovereignty movement is violent while the headline news on their desk reports a rogue soldier killing 16 innocent afghans. Facepalm.

reply to post by petrus4

My point is that I don't understand how state/government law is based on anything other than a] mutual agreement, or b] violence as a means of enforcement, if you don't agree.

OK, this is not hard to understand. Do you know what a Contract is?
Do you know that when a Contract is signed, both parties must stand to the wording of the Contract? American Common and Commercial Law is Contract Law. This goes back to Tall ships and freight shipping of the 17th-19th Century. We had the Magna Carta then, the document that was a model for our Articles of Confederation and our Constitution. All Law was Contract Law. I like it this way, everyone has to uphold their end of the deal, whatever it may be, or face a seizure of property and a public sale of goods to pay the debt. I have done this before, I used the Mechanic's Lien to take several cars because the owners refused to pay for service on them. The Mechanic's Lien is still used every day in America, that is why I do not understand why some say the Common Law is all bunk.

National sovereignty currently exists. America IS a nation.the movement and thus the one encroaching on things are globalists. So the globalist movement is be obstructed.

reply to post by autowrench


What is the secret oath?

I see it has to do with the BAR association. Can you show us the context of the oath?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by petrus4

 

My point is that I don't understand how state/government law is based on anything other than a] mutual agreement, or b] violence as a means of enforcement, if you don't agree.

OK, this is not hard to understand. Do you know what a Contract is?
Do you know that when a Contract is signed, both parties must stand to the wording of the Contract?

That's fine. No problem with that concept at all.

What happens, though, when a cop apprehends you for smoking or possession of marijuana, (as one example) and you haven't agreed to abide by the law prohibiting the smoking or possession of that substance? Is consent to said law implied by citizenship within the given country? If so, how is this determined by individuals who are born within a given country, and do not go through the formal citizenship process? Or is this truly a case where legal authority is simply based on the monopoly of violence?

American Common and Commercial Law is Contract Law. This goes back to Tall ships and freight shipping of the 17th-19th Century. We had the Magna Carta then, the document that was a model for our Articles of Confederation and our Constitution. All Law was Contract Law. I like it this way, everyone has to uphold their end of the deal, whatever it may be, or face a seizure of property and a public sale of goods to pay the debt.

Agreed. Apparently it even used to apply to murder.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by autowrench

 

What is the secret oath?

I see it has to do with the BAR association. Can you show us the context of the oath?

OK, read here first:
Hiding Behind the BAR - Why Attorneys are not lawyers

The "Bar" Treaty of 1947

Then read here, the whole page, and you will then understand.
From the page:

It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after read about Mr. Sweet's CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE discussed below. There is more to it. Not only do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will say, "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."

THE LAWYER'S SECRET OATH

When I have occasion to go to court, I never retain an attorney, they are officers of the court. I represent my own self. I have gotten quite good at it too, having avoided jail for over 30 years now.

Bar Association History & Who Owns the U.S.

reply to post by petrus4

What happens, though, when a cop apprehends you for smoking or possession of marijuana, (as one example) and you haven't agreed to abide by the law prohibiting the smoking or possession of that substance? Is consent to said law implied by citizenship within the given country? If so, how is this determined by individuals who are born within a given country, and do not go through the formal citizenship process? Or is this truly a case where legal authority is simply based on the monopoly of violence?

I am a student of the Constitution, and the Articles, and of the American Common Law. The "laws" against marijuana are statutes, not laws. A statute is a rule agreed upon by a legislative body, it is not a rule of law. I have never attempted to defend such a charge myself, perhaps some research in the Common Law forums?
The cases I have defended have to do with traffic tickets and equipment violations such as H.P. equipment on a car, and over gun ownership and open carry.
I have a contract with the State, so I will abide by the State's rules for driving. If a traffic policemen tickets me for a violation that I am guilty of, I pay, no harm, no foul. But! It the ticket is unfair, or un-Constitional in any way, we go to court.

Originally posted by autowrench
I am a student of the Constitution, and the Articles, and of the American Common Law. The "laws" against marijuana are statutes, not laws. A statute is a rule agreed upon by a legislative body, it is not a rule of law. I have never attempted to defend such a charge myself, perhaps some research in the Common Law forums?

Yes, but that is the point. If the agreement is between members of a legislature, and I am not a member of said legislature, what I do not understand is how said statute can bind me, other than, again, by involuntary enforcement through violence. If I am not a member of said legislature, I have not agreed to the terms; nor has my agreement even been sought. I might have to ask there though, yes.

reply to post by DavidWillts


if you had any kind of head on that sholder of yours you would go google sovereign vs police or you would research us sovereign's before you talk just you dont want to be free that dont mean that everyone eals dont want to be free so please go read on us before you condem us you must not like haveing your constitutional rights and freedom by the way you talking so please again think before you talk about things you know nothing about

reply to post by CB328


well it dose say it we go by constitutional law not the defacto law the defacto gov't try's to twist the constitution to there likeing so the can break there own laws how can you be the law or police and break the law them self's that is not right they cant do that but they try like hell to do so that's why people are going to ssovereignty because the defacto law is breaking the common law of the land by the constitution