franklin
Forum Replies Created
These people are bad apples who cannot even articulate what they “believe”. They espouse a poorly formed religion because they do not support any of their poorly articulated positions with facts or law.
They do not even know that the Supreme Court has underscored the sovereignty of the people. State constitutions articulate the sovereignty of the people. Some state constitutions articulate the fact that the English common law is the rule of decision in state courts. If they only used that readily available information in defense of their sovereignty they would be on the right track.
But, belief has nothing to do with sovereignty.
You're either sovereign or citizen but not both.
1st guy looks like the sovereign's court jester. He's inarticulate because he does not frame any of his thoughts in concepts.
2nd guy, also inarticulate about “person”, taxes, the interviewer gets him on the run. Hems and haws “everything has been paid for”. Doesn't even know that the infrastructure is paid for by borrowing and putting people into debt.
The young woman interviewer seemed very reasonable and open to genuine answers.
3rd guy is propagandist for police. The cop doesn't speak of cops who murder citizens on a daily basis. Like the yahoo cop in Oregon a few weeks ago that within a few seconds shot an innocent man doing nothing to harm anyone.
4th guy uses inflammatory rhetoric “they hate the government”. That's probably a good assessment of sovereign citizens.
Genuine sovereigns hold the government to lawful actions that have been delegated to it and recognize that governments are instituted among people for their protection.
The flaky 'sovereign citizens' who injure the rights of others by squatting on other people's property belong in jail. It's a criminal violation of the common law that they vaguely refer to.
5th commentator says they don't “believe” they are subject to the laws.
Again the sovereign citizens create such misunderstanding because law is always a jurisdictional issue every day in every traffic stop and in every courtroom. It has nothing to do with belief.
The fools need to make it clear that the government must prove its jurisdiction over the land on which it wants to enforce its laws and over a human being. And that jurisdiction cannot be waived and can always be challenged lawfully. That's very different from so-called sovereign citizens saying they don't believe the law applies to them.
Some laws do and some laws don't. Belief has nothing to do with it.
First it is a contradiction to call oneself a sovereign citizen. You are one or the other but not both.
The most famous sovereign citizen in the western world is Queen Elizabeth II. She is simply Mrs. Betty Mountbatten, a citizen of the EU without a shred of sovereign authority. Here's an example to illustrate…
- Spanish fishermen were registering their boats in England so they could legally fish off the English coast.
- Parliament made a law that no Spanish ships could be registered in England.
- The queen signed the bill into law as the unwritten English constitution requires.
- The law was vetoed, rendered null and void, by the European Union.
- The Spanish fishermen continue to register their boats in England and fish off the English coast.
- She is a 'sovereign'/citizen.
I agree with the commentators that these people are dangerous.
But the commentators are as ignorant as the sovereign citizens. Each side using propaganda with the commentators doing a better job.
I agree that the sovereign citizens are dangerous to the restoration of proper lawful government in the states as well as being criminally dangerous in their acts of violence.
People who read and are members of this site and/or SEDM need to be publicly vocal about rejecting the antics, criminal or otherwise, of 'sovereign citizens'.
Even though the guy might be an accurate guru, all paper investments require brokerage accounts that require a SSN. 😡
The link to snopes says that the page wanted is not available.
I think writing to congress critters is a waste of time.
The pressure needs to be put on state and county officials.
The momentum that's building within many states needs to be encouraged.
Without the 10th Amendment being enforced, there is no 9th Amendment, 13th Amendment etc.
The fundamental thing that will make state resistance to federal encroachment is to STOP, as in RIGHT NOW, taking any federal fiat money for anything at all. Or…
at the very least, put a strongly worded statement in any financial agreement with the federal government, or even in the state constitution, that any monies received will be classified as free and clear donations.
That way the federal government can decide not to grant any money to such a state, and such a state constitutional amendment would control the avaricious socialist politicians in that state.
Don't waste time on the congress, the Tea Party has already caved in by reaffirming the Patriot Act's worst provisions.
At a dinner party last night, I asked a journalist for a nationally known newspaper, who is systematically interviewing the Tea Party winners in the last election, how they and their constituents felt about their voting to extend the PA. She said, “It's just not an issue for them” (and presumably not for their constituents).
But, all federal legislation should be an issue for the state legislatures and that's where our efforts to influence should be.
That's what happens when you're involved in a “trade or business”. 🙄
They now actually teach the LAW OF CONTRADICTION in schools.
So, their feelings don't get hurt, children who don't spell correctly or calculate correctly, get gold stars and smiley faces for being “INVENTIVE”.
Inventive spelling and arithmetic are destroying the communication and reasoning skills of children educated in public schools.
Wrong is right, 2+2=6, spl=spell. “Good boy, you're very creative!!” 🙂
When one of these kids gets to be president it will make GWB, [“nukular wepins”, “most of our imports come from foreign countries”], look like Thomas Jefferson. 🙁
“Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.” GREAT IDEA!!!
Only wouldn't it be better if they weren't disbanded but gathered together and waterboarded?
And Stone, the only things you would miss by not being invited to the queendom of America would be that you wouldn't pay tax to buy those Dr. Seuss hats the queen wears and you would not have to fund royal weddings and the inevitable divorces. And you wouldn't have to take Viagra to keep a stiff upper lip when you were under pressure!!
The downside is that all of the displaced congresscriminals would probably seek refuge in the United State of Kansas, but they could be locked in Leavenworth and throw out their Public Laws through the bars, AND you would have to divorce yourself from their franchises and become a Kansan national but not citizen thereof 😉
Hip, Hip, Hurrah!! God Save the queen [mostly from her family!!]
Spooner's argument that the Constitution was only relevant to the people who wrote it contains a presumption that reduces his argument to the absurd. That the Constitution cannot enforce itself (true) AND that the People cannot enforce by their choice ancient systems of law, which they did not create, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Ten Commandments.
His presumption that general documents, like the Constitution, only apply to those who wrote it, can be applied to any'gov' publication or decision.
One could make the same case by saying that any law passed today does not bind a child born tomorrow. That no laws apply to anyone who was not there when they were written.
No one, therefore, is obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, not because they weren't there when they were written, but because they choose to live outside of God's government. The Israelites told God to leave them in peace under the Pharoh (Exodus 14:11-12).
And, despite God's great promises to them, they did nothing but kvetch and moan when they did leave Egypt (Exodus 16:2-3)
What he is presuming is that no one, born after the Constitution was written, could be protected by it, or governed by it.
But people can 'opt in' and 'opt out'. Just as the Israelites wanted to opt out.
The Declaration of Independence makes clear that the People (all over the world as it now seems) can decide what government they want to live under, what constitution will protect them, and the People bear the responsibility for creating or recreating their government of choice.
Under Spooner's idea, the German-speaking George III would have reverted to being king of America had he outlived those who wrote the Constitution. But, George agreed he would have to go (after a little arm twisting of course).
When Spooner uses the example of a man who buys a house for himself and his posterity, he says the man cannot speak for his posterity. And that is true. His grandchildren may continue to live in the house or they may decide not to be governed by his wishes and make a choice to live under some other roof.
His example is spurious and does not illustrate a valid point. Choice decides relevancy and obligation.
Anyone can move out from under a government that is an enemy to the People's safety and happiness.
Spooner's work is used by knowledgeable people to show the impotence of the Constitution.
It is, of course, if the People choose not to use it to their advantage. After all it is only a piece of paper.
But the ideas it promotes are not mere paper, but memorialized (on paper) such spiritual and psychological universal aspects of people who have a natural urge within themselves to live in freedom.
I think it is fair to say that most people in America believe, however vaguely and inarticulately, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the best form of government in the world.
The problem is that those elected to office by an inarticulate untutored public have convinced the People through corrupt language and insidious propaganda that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights means having a right to other people's labor and property.
And also they have come to believe that they have elected those officials to be sovereign over them.
The evil government officials have recreated the Bill of Rights as the Bill of Privileges which are designed to bribe the people into reelecting the Consitituion haters in Congress.
Spooner's proposition that the Constitution was put into, and remains in, a time capsule is well represented by recent federal administrations. For example…
- Dubya's famous statement that the Constitution is only a gd piece of paper,
- S0etoro's decision to ignore the Florida judge who ruled the Health Care Reform Act unconstitutional,
- S0etoro's multi-million dollar attempt to hide the fact that he was born in the wrong place to be the constitutional president (but not the corporate president of Office of the President, Inc.),
- Injustice G1nsburg's insistence that the SC should be guided by the rulings of foreign courts, like the Israeli Knesset,
- S0t0mayer's appointment to the court, in spite of impeachable criminal “bad behavior” known to the Judiciary Committee, for having deprived creditors from learning in bankruptcy court about significant money hidden by the debtor, a friend of hers. And for tax evasion on a condominium she owns in Florida. [An enforced Constitution would remove her from consideration or from the bench, not appoint her or keep her in place in spite of her “bad behavior”]
are all good examples of Spooner's idea that the Constitution is an antique document with no one empowered to enforce it.
But, the People can choose to enforce it whether Spooner agrees with that or not. Because…
People can choose to live by ideas expounded in the past (every family has traditions that were started by great-great grandma, and they choose to live according to those traditions.)
It is the People's choice that makes the Constitution relevant today, tomorrow until people stop choosing it.
In my not so humble opinion, Spooner is treated with far too much intellectual and political deference.
Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EJuWe1cj
BTW, in the article, Clarence Thomas tells Puerto Rican Jose Serrant (D-NY) that he might noth be eligible for president, but could wind up on the Supreme Court because there is no “natural born citizen” requirement to be on the court.
AND there is no requirement that a lawyer or judge be on the court either. 😮
So let's get busy and get Admin, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and other non-lawyers on the court.
Washington appointed six LAWYERS (not ATTORNEYS) to sit on the first supreme court.
Attorney: One who represents another (Black's 6th)
Lawyer: One learned in the law who gives advice and counsel (Black's 6th). This characterizes many men and women living at present in our very midst. 😎
Of the six LAWYERS appointed by Washington to the SC, two were foreign born: James Wilson, Scottish immigrant and signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of the constitutional Convention and James Iredell, English immigrant.
Good post. Thanks.
So when 'judges' declare as “frivolous” a patriot argument based on common law, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, it means that God is frivolous.
Here's an idea!
This could be put in the definition section of pleadings: 1.)”When this court, or any of its officers, uses the word “frivolous”, in any context whatsoever relating to these proceedings, it shall mean: “God and his Commandments are without merit, both being nullities.” 2.) When any litigant proceeding in his own right, without an attorney, uses the word “frivolous” in any context in response to an utterance, spoken or written, by the court or any of its officers, related to these proceedings, it shall mean meritless, a nullity.”
Since “frivolous” is nothing more than a judge's insult, anyone can define it. So I think the above would work.
But let's have some fun. 🙄 Do you think this one would work? <_<
“When this court, or any of its officers, uses the word “contempt” it shall mean: “Thank you for upholding the honor of this honorable court”. They can't throw you in jail for asserting they've received from you such a compliment.” 😛
Tea Party votes for (un)patriot act
http://theintelhub.com/2011/02/15/tea-party-crashes-the-most-unpatriotic-act/
Anyone who believes the empty rhetoric of politicians wearing halos and wings, especially if they're holding a cup of tea with their pinkies raised, and puts their hope in them for salvation from politicians wearing horns and long red tails, is at best a mindless fool and at worst a willful violator of the First Commandment.
It only took 20 days for the Tea Party to discover that it was more profitable to follow the established good ole girls in congress than to do what they promised their worshipers they would do.
You go to congress for one reason and one reason only, to get wealthy at the expense of the People without producing anything of value and without earning a dime.
If there was one campaign candidate 😀 who stood up and told the crowd, “I'm not very bright, I have no talent to produce anything anybody will buy, and I can't support myself in style, so I want to go to the district of criminals to get wealthy and retire with a golden parachute after two years. 😛 “
Now that would be an honest politician worthy of being elected. The electorate would know she would never lie to them.
The American electorate is summed up in Charlie Brown, and the “representatives” they send to get wealthy on borrowed money in the district of criminals are summed up in Lucy…the 'speaker of the house' in the Peanuts comic strip.
As you know, Lucy promises year after year, that she will hold the football in place while Charlie takes a kick. Charlie believes her lie EVERY SINGLE TIME year in year out, generation after generation, and, just as he is about to make contact with the ball, she pulls it away from his aim EVERY SINGLE TIME year after year, generation after generation.
The Tea Party. Indeed!
They insult and dishonor the hosts of the original tea party. As the shameless Billary would say “Shame on you, shame on you”.
They've learned in less than three weeks that they cannot drink their tea out of china cups or even mugs, they must drink the kool-aid out of silver cups that they will charge to your credit card. 😛
Who would've guessed? :huh: For sure, not those in the voting franchise.
Veddy Interesting.
The court's ruling would seem to open the way potential Bivens actions against state employees unlawfully occupying their offices and acting under color of law to demand and take people's property (e.g. property taxes) in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Moral of story appears to be check the bonding statutes in the annotated code wherever you are.
Even Romans 13:1-7 doesn't require that you slavishly obey people who are not even occupying their offices legally (I don't think 😕 ]. Even Paul would not claim (I don't think 😕 ) that God places illegal government officials who are to be obeyed over the people.
I think St. Paul would agree with St. Bivens that illegal government officials are to be screwed, blued and tatooed [so to speak 😛 ] for their malice and dishonesty.
The fundamental point these uprisings make is that, where human governments are concerned, all sovereignty resides in the people and not in government officials (as the false prophets of Romans 1-7 would have it).
The useless eaters of the NWO, are not content with their already fabulous wealth. For they know that wealth adds nothing to them as humans. They can only eat so much food, wear one suit of clothes at a time, feel unbearably lonely in houses full of museum pieces.
The best known example of the meaninglessness of excessive wealth is the British royal family, one of the unhappiest most maladjusted families on the planet. If there was ever a dysfunctional family, whose members cannot find contentment in their relationships or meaningless lives, it is the house of saxe-coburg-goetha-windsor. Instead of servants, they need a resident family therapist.
Knowing that wealth does not create meaning in one's life, the illuminati want power and control over the entire world (though China probably will tell them to get lost) to make living worthwhile.
As for intelligence, they have that confused with cunning.
Queen Beatrix, an ardent Bilderberger (her father founded the group with Prince Philip) has never uttered an intelligent phrase that anyone has recorded. She is one of the wealthiest women on earth.
Prince Philip, wants to help humanity by being reincarnated as a deadly virus and reduce the population. That is, he wants to be in control of worldwide genocide.
Queen Elizabeth, another of the wealthiest women on earth, recently applied for a government poverty grant to pay the electric bills in her palaces. She was not intelligent enough to foresee that the people would have removed her forthwith.
Prince Charles, he talks to his trees.
Henry Kissinger, a prisoner of his own crimes. He is strictly limited in where he can travel because he is in constant danger of being arrested for his war crimes.
George W. Bush, a prisoner of his own crimes. He was threatened with arrest a few weeks ago for his crimes against humanity if he set foot in Switzerland. He stayed home on his ranch, his prison.
Etc.
The would be rulers are essentially stupid. They are the ILLUMINUTTY, not the illuminati.
Shakespeare was a great psychologist. He made the point that events were not tragic. They were merely melodramatic. Tragedy always resided in the person in the form of a tragic flaw in their character, Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello that produced the circumstances that became their undoing.
That is to say, most people make their own trouble. And the illuminutty have certainly proven that to be true. Their belief that power over people without their consent is possible, is their tragic flaw. They have failed to learn from history that when people have had enough, and withdraw their consent, their 'rulers' must flee (e.g. the Egyptian president, George III) or lose their heads (e.g. Charles I, Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette).
And the illuminutty cannot see that they would not be able to survive in the world they are trying to create. When people stop using their digital and paper “money”, the illuminutty will be impoverished. Now how smart is that?
Sovereignty is in the people at large, not just Americans. The trouble is that the people put up with too much for too long. Now how smart is that? <_<
BobT, you wrote…
Quote:Thank you for your kind words. Respectfully, the Oath is to the Constitution, not the D&B.That is the point. The Constitution protects contractees from interference in their contracts.
They are not violating the Constitution, which protects them. They are acting constitutionally when they disallow the Constitution to be used against them in federal courts. A person citing the constitution against a corporation and its CEO definitely has no standing to bring such a suit.
If a corporation does something illegal, then that is what has to be litigated, as happened with Martha Stewart.
Of course they would take an oath to the Constitution which protects them and the courts uphold it, too, by throwing out anyone who claims they are acting unconstitutionally.
The Constitution does not protect illegal activity, but it does protect contracts.
And OB as the CEO occupying the office of president, inc. is not violating the constitution. He could be born on Mars and still occupy the office of president, inc.
A legal question might be: “Is Office of the President, Inc.” lawfully occupying the WH, or is the corporation trespassing? Is there a contract between Office of the President, Inc. and Congress of the United States, Inc. for OB to use the WH. If there is a contract, what is the consideration tendered by both parties? If there is no contract, who has standing to evict him?
OB is the constitutionally protected incumbent in Office of the President, Inc.
It is as important for people to understand the corporate nature of the government as it is for them to understand the Constitution. Then they will see how simply and easily the gov avoids constitutional challenges.
People win in their corporate courts, not by citing the Constitution, but by creating a record of violations by the court of their own rules.
Recall the strategy used by a member whose court documents are available on this site. That member simply held the prosecutor to the rules that he, the prosecutor, agreed to when he downloaded materials from the site.
Though the site is not a corporation, the prosecutor created a contract by his actions in downloading the materials after agreeing to the terms required to use the property of the site. The Constitution protects contracts not corporations per se.
And the corporate courts understand and accomodate in their rules the constitutional policies of the People, which is a demand for due process of law (not administrative due process).
The STATE OF ARIZONA, INC in my opinion, is making a huge mistake by going into a federal Article IV legislative corporate administrative territorial court without any Article III judicial power and asking that administrative office to affirm its Constitutional sovereignty to make and execute its own laws, especially when those laws are consistent with federal law.
By petitioning that corporate court, AZ has a contract with that court and seeks its protection.
The court itself, I believe, would only have standing to adjudicate a contractual dispute between Office of the President, Inc. and the STATE OF AZ, Inc. We will see how this plays out, and what legal mumbo jumbo the court will hand down to disguise the corporate nature of the proceedings, and whether my opinion is really true.
The Office of President, Inc., has no constitutional obligation whatsoever to protect the STATE OF ARIZONA from invasion by illegal immigrants. While the organic constitutional presidency does.
The Constitution simply is not ipso facto even implicit in the by laws of corporations.
BobT, you will understand that these are my opinions based on my present level of understanding about why the gov acts in a corporate capacity. And I am sure it is clear to you that there is nothing humble about those opinions as in the web shorthand IMHO. (All opinions are true, so why be humble about them ? 😉
However, none of my opinions is cast is stone and insulated from change. So feel free to rebut any and everything.
You may remember a member who has been absent from these forums for some time who had a way with words, or with one word, when expressing his opinion…”Rubbish” 😀 was his economical way of stating his true opinion.
So, your gentler, wiser, more informed comments have made me rethink and restate my own very true 🙄 opinions.
Thanks for that.
Great work. Needs a bit of horse manure on that immaculately clean floor to be really authentic. 🙄
