I am a private attorney general and a federal witness and crime investigator - these laws are self-executing - there is a private sector and a public sector - use the federal reserve account assigned to your all capital letter name for what it was made for - to discharge the obligation of that 14th Amendment fictional legal corporate entity that was started using your private name and traded on the public stock market - when you turn 18 that birth certificate interest is to reduce national debt
Another thing they say is that EVERYONE that walks on the land is subject to the laws. I beg to differ, try locking up an original member of one of the recognized tribes. ROFLMAO They (US MILITARY) will KILL you. even if you are a government such as sheriff. This is because they have a treaty with the Queen, and are allies with her majesty. And you will cause a war for locking up one of her allies.
"So why not turn Americans into terrorists and put them in jail indefinitely?" They are working on it. They already have US citizen listed as a Enemy of the State. rofl. Besides. this so called LAW ONLY applies to US citizens calling themselves Sovereign/Citizens. For a LONG time I have been telling people sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. Yea defendant in error would be proper, till they claim a defendant in error is a terrorist. Eventually US citizens will all be locked up in detainment camps.
Check this out remove brackets and everything between> replace with apropriate or add it after youtube link.. replace grey part.. )youtube-dot-com(watch?v=d_y-gLm9Hrw&feature=related
your dead wrong and im done with your lame channel after seeing all this tactical guy call me my number hasn't changed and my video's arn't' getting puled 9098393313 and i am a sovereign citizen of the republic of california, and im not a agent or a patsy bro be logical if they are calling us domestic terrorist and paper terrorist. i am the man not the fiction. your the fiction. you belive ever fear mongering article you read?
Thanx for the advice and showing people how to discern information.
Thanx to the FBI too for keeping us safe from fraudulent schemes under color of law like the FEDERAL RESERVE and we know that their bills of credit are lawful according to the constitution.Whoops strike that last statement bills of credit are not lawful under the constitution my bad.
This is a good sign. If there was nothing to the movement, no one on law enforcement would care. They are trying to discredit the movement because it calls thier bluff.
The word, sovereign, is a trigger word for corporate goons. Call yourself a Secured Party Creditor of the United States (corporation). Then say,"I am a flesh and blood man and the sole beneficiary of the trust. I do not consent and waive all benefits."
@stopdemockery you must waive all benefits by cancelling contracts that show you get benefits. This way they cannot show that you received any valuable consideration from said contracts.
why let anyone tell you what to believe or BE...do your own research and become free as only YOU can determine what free is...or go back to being a debt slave...
A sovereign citizen does not make sense. A STATE CITIZEN has the rights of the sovereignty from the sovereign state which he resides in.Ohio L Ins. & T Co. v Debolt 16 How 416 14 L Ed. 997 which states in pertinent part: “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitution, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
LANSING v. SMITH 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) 1829 “The people of this State are the successors of its’ former sovereign are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Kawananakoa v Polyblank 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L Ed. 834 (1907) which states in pertinent part: “A sovereign is exempt from suit,... but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.”
So here are some interesting questions; If you waive your sovereign rights once, do you loose them permanently? Do you have to go through a formal sovereignty process or do you merely have to KNOW how to enforce your rights? MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148. “It is one thing to find that the Tribe...
“It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its’ powers unless it expressly reserves its right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”
Here are some interesting court decisions (decided in a court of law, as opposed to being written into law, therefore these are "common law" decisions usable by sovereigns): McDonel v State 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at page 323 it was decided: “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not be a citizen of the United States.”
Tashiro v Jordan 256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123 states in pertinent part: “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship.”
Soveriegn is supreme ruler. Citizen is the concept of being part of some sort of social structure. Regardless of disputing definitions; what matters is how YOU define such a thing and make that definition understood by the other parties. Either way it doesn't matter what you call yourself, it's the act of understanding the law which will set you free.
Why are you on a list? You are correct about "sovereign citizen" being the WRONG thing to admit to being. They were trying to set you up...two FBI agents and a VERY large cop came to my door and asked me if I was a sovereign citizen and my response was, "No. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what a sovereign citizen is. But I do know that I am an Article IV free inhabitant pursuant to The AOC of November 15, 1777. I am NOT a United States citizen and do not reside in the United States."
Pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, one can claim to be a free inhabitant. Google it. It is part of the Organic Laws of the United States of America. Google that too. Article IV free inhabitants are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens. Ed Rivera is a legal genius and I suggest you go to his website and start reading his posts. Free inhabitants don't file and pay taxes. The truth makes you free. w w w d o t edrivera d o t c o m
A Subject is a powerful position, under Anglo Saxon, Germanic Common Law, with the right of Subjection comes a Duty of Protection. Every Man has a Duty to protect against the World.
You rights and duties are lost by becoming a Citizen because Civil Law is Roman, Ancestral Traditions are not a Civil Matter. Use you ancestry to claim your rights and duties. See Blacks Law common ancestry and Roscoe Pound Spirit of Common Law
Freedom is more a mental state rather than challenging a court or dealing with a mountain of paperwork.. Dont let anyone tell you what to call yourself man.. the labels are simply more restrictions.
Lol, I said the same thing to the British Columbia freeman society, no way I am joining any society, because then you can be labelled as a threat, and then a terrorist under the quasi-laws of both the USA, and Canada. I will have to keep my belief secret, so I am not persecuted for my beliefs. Hey wait, isnt the right to believe what you want upheld by the constitution, and the Canadian bill of rights...Guess not, becuase they only apply to federal employees (aka citizens).
This guy is a shill...dumb cop hiding behind his uneducated arse.
Oh I pay taxes cause I'm' too lazy to bother to educate myself or learn from a ton of IRS agents who LEFT becuase of the fact TAXES ON LABOR ARE ILLEGAL!.
The IRS is nothing but a mob enforcement for the Central Bankers (who own and run the Unitied States of America Inc.) Nice scare tactic...that is exactly what homeland security wants is bozzo's like you out there spreading their fear mongering.
sovereignty was a term used to acknowledge the kings soul authority over the land and the people of the land - WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL - MEANS YOU ARE GRANTED BY THE POWERS OF GOD TO RULE YOURSELF -PIECE FULLY NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PUNISH OR TAKE AWAY FROM ANOTHER TO IMPOSE THERE BELIEFS
Great point. People educate yourself. Thank you, Tactical guy. Their a difference between a peace officer and a police officer - a major one. Just address them as a peace officer, they pledged to uphold the constitution.
Wow, that's some first-class crazy talk. If you stay on the conspiracy merry-go-round and talk in circles long enough, you get so dizzy that normal people look like they're walking sideways.
My issue is what gives the "government" the authority to govern us? The declaration of independence states they govern only through consent of the governed. Unless we remove that consent isnt that just a legal presumption? How can they lawfully govern us if we remove that consent?
pulling you over for a "traffic violation" is NOT an emergency, so that's 1 right there. Secondly, under the Constitution and common law, which the Continental US was founded on, if there is NO injured party, you have committed NO crime. Sovereigns being outside of law and not subject to the laws of the U.S. are correct, because there are TWO United States, the Federal and Continental. The Federal ones which regulates commerce is the one cops work for to enforce POLICE-IES..NOT Common LAW.
The feds are using provocateurs to try and get you to incriminate yourself. If you studied the Constitution and the law then it would make more sense. All Americans were made free sovereigns but now they are 14th amendment slaves which is why, via various unrevealed contracts you are subject to the "law". Cops are called Police officers..PolicY(E) officers... they enfroce Corporate POLICIES, NOT the law. When a cops puts his lights on for a NON emergency, he's already broken Federal law...
Ay Bro contact me at johnny029@netzero.com I have proof that the Redemtion Process works. In fact I have a friend who Liquidated 4 Billion in it & he has sent me his secrets via internet. Contact me a.s.a.p.
Who says you have to accept any title to begin with? If you called the judge "asshole" you'd probably offend him. If they called me "citizen", likewise, I'd likely object to the title and then 'permit' him to address me as something like "superman", "only for the purposes of these proceedings"
Wow, so you have no clue as to how this nation was formed??? By people who considered themselves sovereign from King George...They were all Lawyers.. Your an idiot who's afraid to be labeled a truth teller... Go figure...
@Tadow001 This nation was formed by British subjects who wouldn't have done a thing if they where allowed membership in the British good ol' boys club. They where comparatively wealthy landowners and merchants who wanted still more of the pie. I can't recall any of them being described as being an Lawyer as a side line, much less all of them being lawyers
sovreign citizens commit murder lool murder is a whole new level thats a halm and loss common law situation=HUMAN RIGHTS DISAPPEAR unless self defence which you gotta prove.......but you see all this presidents politicians and police officers get away with anythin(could the be above the law because they know the law)hmmm who knows but we are what we choose to be if there was no law other than common sense a million years ago then why is it around today?....are we persuaded to act a certain way?
very valid point i didnt think of it like that...a free slave lool its no more than what we are now....the amount of corruptness surrounding it makes it innevitable that it wont work...but just pause and think if everyone stopped being scared of their governments and said no....the tables would turn quite dramatically in our favour
omg they are not terrorists, these laws were made by our founding fathers, and they want to be free without being bulied so since they can't control u now they r terrous, give it up, manipulation not working
another thing, there is people scamming on all that shit.. when ur a sovereign, u dont have to file. the minute u file ur under the jurisdiction of who ever ur filing with. its 1+1=2.. that easy. these people found out that they make money on naive people looking for change. thay may have some info right but there scam artist.
she is stupid.. u cant be a sovereign citizen. its a contradiction. the two words cant be put together. u either a sovereign or a citizen...or, how i like to c it for what it is. we are all sovereigns that have a citizenship by being hoodwinked. thats the fact.
sov·er·eign [sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Show IPA –noun 1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2. a person who has sovereign power or authority. 3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority. –adjective 5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal. 6. having supreme rank, power, or authority. 7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right
HI! TACK GUY I'VE WATCHED A SEQUENCE OF YOUR VIDEOS THANKS FOR THE INFO YOU'VE RAISED MY ANTENNA ABOUT A COMMENT YOU MADE IN THE ONE VIDEO ABOUT THE GUY WHO BEAT THE POSSESSION CHARGE YOU SAID YOU THINK THE "STRAWMAN IS BOGUS WELL KINDA GOT MY START WITH THAT MONIKER BUT I'VE DISCOVERED SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE PERTINENT IN ESTABLISHING ONESELF TO GIVE CLAIM TO YOUR RIGHTS IN COMMERCE !!!!
I just don't understand why the FBI would think anyone who believes in thief right a terrorist I would call it patriot instead. Thus country us going the wrong way... This country is founded on the freedom of peoples rights freedoms and what these courts are doing us just down right wrong and they should be held accountable. What us the government afraid of... And why would they turn on their own people
can you please clarify what you mean at 5:38 where you tell people not to jump when someone says jump, but at 6:38 you pay taxes because you don't know why you pay taxes - you just do. This seems like a hypocritical line of thinking. Do you pay taxes just because the government says to pay taxes? Help me understand.
Thanks for helping, but now i'm more confused. So if one does not pay taxes, they are immoral? but we pay because we are ignorant of the tax laws. Then if we become not ignorant of the tax laws and decide not to pay, we are immoral? Hmmm, this is truly a conundrum.
If you live in the desert/mountains and pretty much provide for yourself then there would be no problem not paying taxes. If you live in a City, have a decent job, making use of public property and services, paying taxes I believe would be the right thing too do.
It gets complex when morality is thrown into the mix. Try not to over analyse it.
@eaobuckrat taxes dont pay for ANY of those things. 100 percent of income tax goes directly to the federal reserve as interest on the money they already LOANED our government. our congress has the authority to create our money interest free, but NOT the authority to give that ability to any third party. please explain why not paying income tax is immoral in any way, shape, or form.
@donyunger i just told you, all the money spent by the federal government comes directly from the federal reserve as a loan, with interest on it. interest taxes go to the minimum payments on all the loans we already have out. but because all the money we have is created by the fed, it can NEVER be enough to pay it back, so we can never be out of debt to them. that is why they created enormous amounts of money out of thin air and bought the banks from all over the world. they own it all now.
@eaobuckrat how can you PROVE that the taxes you pay actually go to paying for anything you are told or think? i.e. upkeep of society, infrastructure, etc? TAXES are all forms of oppression; and to NOT believe that we the republic as a whole would make sure these things would happen.....is a sign....of the WELL OILING of the system...
@EntouchNetwork So what is the source of the revenue that builds the public infrastructure, then,if not taxes? In the event you don't know I recommend you start reading the proper newspapers fully report items off public interest. This is a republic, a republic that has been insuring those things you say a republic as a whole would do. The reason you can't see that is because it's your ignorance is being oiled by ideology.
@donyunger ...the better ? would b...."what is the SOURCE that builds the public infrastructure?"...(take out revenue)...the answer is simple for those whom remember....PEOPLE...when Haiti was hit...when Katrina was hit...etc, etc....do u THINK....the PPL whom were devastated ..and NEEDED something (a road/pathway)..waited for REVENUE?? lol...as we saw they not only didnt get revenue...'masters that b"....sat and watched them from surveillance afar...while they died....would U wait for REVENUE?
@donyunger the better ? would b...."what is the SOURCE that builds the public infrastructure?"...(take out revenue)...the answer is simple for those whom remember....PEOPLE...when Haiti was hit...when Katrina was hit...etc, etc....do u THINK....the PPL whom were devastated ..and NEEDED something (a road/pathway)..waited for REVENUE? lol...as we saw they not only didnt get revenue...'masters that b'....sat and watched them from surveillance afar...while they died....would U wait for REVENUE?
@donyunger reading the proper newspapers? hmmm...i don't consider ANYTHING from gooberment/ media based statistics/accounting/and propoganda PROPER....i consider it a waste of paper and the life of a tree that provides me O2..which is farrr more valuable and necessary to LIFE we'd die w/o it...think outside the box...if only for a moment...i doubt u will summarize it as ideology in the future...
@donyunger we are SPIRITS in human bodies attempting to experience life the way we were MEANT to as u can see from EVERY WAR/EVERY CATASTROPHE which has been going on since God KNOWS WHEN...those whom survived...didnt do with w/REVENUE!!! i'm ignorant?....my badonkas! lol...money is not the answer...it is a ponzi scheme. we cannot keep the same system; it HAS 2 b different. "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...and u'd want to encourage this?
@eaobuckrat MORAL men would not CREATE TAXES.....for the upkeep of society and life and culture.....everything else u mentioned is all based on ponzi schemes and institutions that support death, destruction and hatred. and on top of it...if you haven't noticed we r TAXED on just about everything today...so how does one REALLY get out of it....unless that live straight from the Earth....which is what we were MEANT to do....
@wind0wninja Oh wow, so much cliche and you still miss the mark every time. Does that enigmatic bs work on newly enlisted college kids you try to impress or just high schoolers? My sheltered life, homeless sheltered! Haha ..
What it boils down to for me is I just don't believe in the external authority hoax. We are all born on this planet and that makes us ALL equal. Someone else's delusion that a title or a badge or a piece of paper has any authority over me whatsoever is in my estimation a mental defect. All this 'legalese' lingo is fictional nonsense. Doesn't exist in nature. The laws of men mean nothing to me. I know it's wrong to murder, steal, rape and breech contracts. Derp. But laws? All man made. Fiction.
@AceOfHeart2012 Right, we're all born equal, equal being naked, helpless, and stupid whereby you can't take care of yourself and thus need to be taken care of. The problem seems obvious to me, you didn't come into this world fully cognizant, no one does. Until you come to the age of reason and until you figure out a solution, you're usurping their system whereby you are equal. It might all be fiction but you as well as millions of others still acquiesce.
Unless you have your own army to force compliance with YOUR orders I would never (and don't) call myself 'sovereign'. A citizen is a fiction. That's how I grasp it. I'm not a citizen or sovereign. Defendant in error is probably cool. I just call myself a 'peaceful inhabitant'. Or 'a living man'.
@AceOfHeart2012 While I wouldn't call citizen fictional, I wouldn't call inhabitant fictional either. Generally you have to be an inhabitant, to be a citizen. Generally because the US Congress as been known to make a non-inhabitant a US citizen to further US policy.
Just read the Federalists papers writen by Hamilton, Madision, Jay. April, 1961edition (Page 487) Says the State ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. The PEOPLE!!! Then keep reading!!! The Supreme Court ruled that the Federalist papers is the express intent of the authors , and what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Also how the Constitution should be interpeded. Just check it out. Someone who explains this very clearly is Carl Miller,
@Johnwesterlund don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the whole point is to demonize the proper understanding of law, by taking it too far and making a cult out of it. You still have the right and the duty to know as much as you can about the legal system.
@wind0wninja Yeah, that's one of the more brainless comments I've had in a long time, if you equate being part of the sovereign citizen movement with voting for Ron Paul... Then you have no reasoning powers and you're just a troll or a plant, it doesn't make any sense, nothing you said to me did. I say again... I'm steering clear of everything to do with the sovereign movement, the one RP denounces as well.
@N1k1mon Are you really thinking for yourself are do you just think you're thinking? Just because nothing I said to you makes any sense doesn't mean it doesn't. It just means you lack a great deal of understanding in your sheltered little world. Natural for anyone who continues to buy into lies, self made or otherwise. Ron Paul suggests you read the Constitution and I suggest you do to since he's obviously not telling you everything and obviously haven't read it.
"The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43
@wind0wninja When are you going to get to the "New York" is the Capital of the World claim.... LOL All those cases have been debunked already. That is the motives behind the Anarchy and new Age spiritualistic conscience movement under the guise of Sovereignty. Because " we can control ourselves". Heheheh. Mannn, and Tackey posted your comment in the "special area". How deep does it go. LOL
@Starects You must be joking considering that neither of those groups gets it either. And you insinuate but provide no proof. You've debunked nothing.
OTIS M c DONALD, et al v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS GUN CASE;
ROE V. WADE, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) and;
KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).
There isn't any "martial law" that is suppressing the constitution. Those cases above shows that the people still have all rights. Only if they know how to plead them.
@Starects You don't need more case law, you need a dictionary or 4 (Black's law, Bouvier's, Ballentine's, Webtsers). How can you be sovereign if gotta plead for your rights? The President can sign an executive order into law, that's as dictatorial as in gets. The people have granted civil rights to the extent that they do their duty as trustees of their person. If you do not know what your rights are, you have none. You think you have rights, don't show me someone else's case, show me yours.
@wind0wninja See my latest: A255030. In the Los Angeles Municipal Court on Hill St. Four Counts of misdemeanors
Now you go pull the record. You are all over the place and do not provide any authority to support you position. By the way, I have two Balck's law Dictionaries. You need to show what you have actually done besides of misinterpreting the law.
The Authorities I cite are precisely on point. Also, I am wasting my time here having this discussion with you.
@wind0wninja Deny consent to be serviced by a court....Something that works GREAT in Canada (same fundamental principles there as here): File a fee schedule with a notary public declaring the costs for your time and services...when a judge gives you an order, you can write him a bill, just like you would get a bill at a restaurant :P
Effective method...as for denying jurisdiction, that prevents the orders when coming at all.
Notices are a powerful form. Most people do not know that when you are serviced with a ticket or a claim is formed against you, you MUST respond or you go into dishonor. Going into dishonor creates a bad situation for you, because it is implied consent; silence is acquiescence.
The system is commercial; all crimes are commercial. All charges (look up the legal definition) are contract clause breach; being silent when a claim arises against you is acceptance (big issue in our commercial system)
This is because there are 3 types of Law: Common, Equity, and Maritime. Common Law is unwritten law and only judged by a jury. Equity is legislative and contractual law and deals with contracts and disputes. Maritime is law on the seas (extension of Equity).
Our courts do not operate in common law unless that is the jurisdiction....that is OUR job: Deny equity jurisdiction on our flesh and blood, since we are not contracts. We are Man, and entitled only to common law.
@wind0wninja That's right....there are hundreds of thousands of cases that are applicable as remedy precedent. The common law grows as time passes; it's never been limited to a stationary number.
Today, we have remedy in common law for almost every single thing you can think of.
If you accept that the conflict/dispute is a equitable offense, then you admit Equity jurisdiction...if you refuse to consent to equitable remedy, you reserve tort remedy. This is the nature of common law.
This is the most important thing: You decide what jurisdiction you land in. Before arraignment for ANY offense, you are entitled to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings: Is it a civil or criminal action, is there common law remedy, do you retain your right to trial by jury (traffic violations are dispute in excess of $20; never seen one for a smaller amount)...if you act in, and as, a common law adherent, then you object to any equitable procedure. You are not the contract, period.
Now, you can open dialogue to settle the dispute out of court before the hearing through the use of discovery, but few people ever do. You are entitled to any documents the prosecution is availing themselves of, and the testimony of any witnesses brought against you. Typically, traffic offenses are declared to be "criminal" suits, but the nature of a traffic violation is an "infraction", and there are no "infraction laws"..there are civil laws, and criminal laws; don't let them slip that one in.
As for discovery: If you attempt to settle a dispute by means of a Constructive Notice requesting the authority of the claimant to bring suit (by offense of Constitutional Right), they typically cannot answer unless you have "injured someone, damaged their property, or committed fraud". If they do not answer a Constructive Notice, they acquiesce through silence and you get a default judgment signed by a notary and issued to a court in public record and the case is dismissed. Judges must concur.
If you do not agree, explain why. I've used this very concept because they act unconstitutionally and I do not let them foist Equity jurisdiction on my Self; I am a living breathing human being, not a contract, and I have breached no peace nor offended any other Sovereign's rights.
These are the things that apply to We, the People (who are the source and author of the Constitution, which gave license for the government to exist in the first place). We are mainly under common law jurisdiction.
@wind0wninja Exactly. We as human beings are not entitled to equitable remedy; only fictitious entities are; think of the terminology used in a court: You "appear" (nothing can appear since it is already present...we arrive or have "special appearance"), the court "hears" but does not "see" (like with morality and truth..they don't exist; only facts); the judge is the "court" (court, in a legal sense, means forum..i.e., place of debate or discussion. So the judge acts as a fictitious entity)
We as human beings are only entitled to Common Law tort remedy, because we are human beings acting with and/or against other human beings. We contract in the pursuit of happiness, and that right to contract is unlimited. A corporation (or government) is an intangible Form with no power to interact in the real world/common law with the Man...
So when you "appear" in court and stand for "YOUR NAME", you are acting as representative with full commercial liability for YOUR NAME.
In a philosophical sense (which is 100% applicable to law), you have no name; you have no date of birth (that you know)...those are either things ascribed to you or hearsay evidence. You do not know when you were born, as you were not aware in the sense of one who has "come of age".
Further, you (as a living soul) have no name because you were not bequeathed one. You only respond to an appellation (a noise, or sound, or combination thereof) for referential purposes.
So, to solidify this concept for you, corporations and governments are incorporeal and have no real effect except through real people: Sovereigns who have contracted by treaty (corporate charter) for a mutually beneficial (albeit unequally or unfairly) purpose. The U.S.C. defines the Federal government as "A federal corporation." So the Federal government is no less commercial than Wal-Mart; they just have bigger guns and "color of law". They assume every Sovereign is a member of their society.
But the corporate charter established by the Constitution can be abolished (in commercial law it is called right-of-rescission, and it nullifies any contract, thereby removing its legitimacy) by the People, who are the authors and source of the power the Federal government exercises. We, the People, are the power.
Remember this maxim: Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
To refer errors to their origin is to refute them. 3 Co. Inst. 15.
“All statutes and laws enacted by Congress must be in harmony with the Constitution. Any statute or law enacted by Congress that is in contradiction or disharmony with the Constitution is null and void from the beginning. It creates no duties, creates no rights, imposes no obligations or duties upon any Citizen of the united States of America. It is as if it never existed.”Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court, 5 U.S. 137.
@wind0wninja That is correct (and must be noted or it is plausible deniability).
The Constitution is a unilateral contract for government; it is the People's terms. Being or becoming a citizen only means you agree to the terms of the social contract (i.e., government benefits). However, unless it is declared beforehand that all rights exercised before agreement are held in reservation (without prejudice), then they are waived by contract clause unless noted as an unintentional act.
What people don't realize is that government action that goes against the Constitution is an unlawful act, and that it may be both UNLAWFUL and LEGAL at the same time. This is because the very government that produces statutory law determines the legality of those laws and (unless the People rise in protest) attempt to disregard the questions arising from the application of those laws.
If the Supreme Court members know a law is unconstitutional, they can do nothing until it is brought to them.
This is why "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." DoI.
Anyone interested in learning how the DoI and Const. actually work and what the clauses really mean?
@rotnflesh yes, there's a great deal wrong with that line of authority. Government's may create citizens (of that government) but why should anyone be compelled to become a citizen of that government? Why can we not choose to simply be Men? Is that not our right? Also, why must we create government? Why can't we just be a man amongst men?
@scabbybuttcrack Citizens were declared subjects (those owing allegiance and compliance to the state) when Rome was in it's crumbling state (around 200 A.D.). The title "citizen" in the US is not supposed to be seen in this light, in the US, but has been established that way through the 14th Amendment: Rather than us being citizens by choice, we are given citizen status from the Government through the Constitutional Amendment passed illegally by the Northern Union.
Those who haven't studied history of the Civil War (most people) do not know that the North FORCED the South to be a party to the 14th Amendment....for those who do not know how commercial law works (the Constitution falls under the Laws of Commerce in that it is an agreement between all parties for certain stipulations and borders), "a meeting of the minds" is a total agreement made voluntarily without coercion, threat of force, or duress. For a contract to be valid, it must meet that criteria.
Since the North FORCED the South to sign the 14th Amendment, it is null and void. So establishing a citizenship based on it is a fallacy...by extension, forcing people to pay taxes based on this fallacious doctrine is "theft by deception", a high crime.
For a greater context in how the Gov. is illegitimate, consider that Congress was rendered incapable of passing legislation when the Southern congressmen abandoned the Congress before the War. That was never fixed either.
As for "just being a man", everything we do is consented to. Quit consenting to be governed, and lets begin abolishing this illegitimate government and reinstituting the original; the one that conformed to the Constitution and was too afraid to step beyond the boundaries of it.
@wind0wninja And btw: if they attempt to litigate you in a criminal action, there must be a corpus delecti (body of a crime)...if there is one, there is not even evidence of a criminal act. In traffic violations, speeding has no corpus delecti; "illegal parking" has no corpus delecti; rolling through stop signs leaves no corpus delecti.
Any corpus delecti involved in travelling by means of automobile would be a corpse or damaged property. There was none in a speeding infraction.
@rotnflesh Not sure that's any long term solution either. If you read, UCC 5-103 scope "A term in an agreement or undertaking generally excusing liability or generally limiting remedies for failure to preform obligations is not sufficient to vary the obligations prescribed by this article."
Not saying things like this don't work temporarily. But with no standing to do bills of exchange it could still bite you. I know they will prosecute 65 year old cases so the system has endless patience.
@wind0wninja UCC 1-308 reserves your rights prior to contracting. That means any/all birth/inalienable rights. You cannot waive them or contract them away by reserving your rights without prejudice. NO knowledgeable public official likes to take on someone who has signed all of their legal documents without prejudice and knows what it means. Rights are therefore not prejudiced through contract, and rights supersede privilege obligations.
The UCC is the evidence of commercial contract in all law. All signatures one makes are contract signatures: signing for a credit statement, applying for a DL, for SS, for a public benefit.
Sometime, you should look up the legal definitions of "Submit", "Apply", "Register". Their legal application is literally that of a subject and not a Sovereign; this is where Conditional Acceptance (which is an integral part of commercial law) becomes extremely important.
The point is Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393 [1856]. stated: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
As, "a constituent member of THIS sovereignty.” Not your sovereignty, Not the sovereignty, but "this sovereignty" "as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
@wind0wninja You're not making much sense here. If anyone claims lack of jurisdiction and the court agrees that it doesn't have the power to invoke the jurisdiction as adjudged in: RALPH v.THE POLICE COURT.
How then can you imply that the people are not sovereign against such jurisdiction.
Common sense would tell the normal man otherwise. You're not making sense here at all. NOW THAT IS AN OXYMORON! THE COURT SAYS THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.PERIOD!! WHO HAS THE POWER THEN: THE PEOPLE!!
@Starects "Supposing this not to be taxed for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to it being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life..." Padelford. Read: Vattel if you want "authority".
@wind0wninja O.K, on that precise point I will agree, however, you have brought up another issue to be approached. As I remained on the point of the blogs reference to Sovereign Citizens being an oxymoron. Which is a fatally flawed suggestion. Approaching the matter in the context you argue, it has merit, but as Congress under the commerce clause and Taxing powers have not been approached in such a matter correctly to the face of the statues since the Federal Reserves Act in 1913 on consent.
@Starects A tender of bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to . To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a nation. And if it can bind a nation it can bind you.
If you're reading the Constitution and you're not reading the Law of Nations, you're not reading the Constitution.
@wind0wninja Yes! The Universal Law of Human Rights.... amazing, isn't it?
People say "I have Constitutional rights!" HOGWASH! You have universal Human Rights....the Constitution is the framework for the Fed. Gov., a treaty between the States. The Fed. Gov. has very basic powers BESTOWED upon it; they are shared powers, not absolute powers, and any power not granted in the organic Constitution are void ab initio.
And for those who would disagree with the LUHR (I said Universal Law...thats backwards), note it is an ACKNOWLEDGMENT, not an endowment, of the United Nations...and that any Man (woman or man) who disregards those rights is fully commercially liable, because all nations operate in a commercial capacity (contracts, baby! yeaha!)
@Starects Every human being is a Sovereign...the States are republics (Sovereigns delegated to speak for the whole) and the Constitution is a treaty between the States; it forms the Federal Gov., who has VERY SPECIFIC powers they have overstepped alot.
We are Sovereign because we are the source of the Law as written in this nation. It goes from God, to Man, to Constitution, to Government, to Citizen (citizens have duties to Government; that is not how our relationship is supposed to work)
@Starects "We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, ----
but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases; United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
This is where the Supreme Court determines what a Sovereign who is a citizen is, and what a Federal Citizen is: everyone is a Sovereign, and States are there to protect and shield those Sovereigns' rights from abrogation by other Sovereigns or other governmental forms.
Federal citizens are Sovereigns who have waived certain rights for the benefits the government offers in fealty (as public employees without title)
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA
Why separate categories for sovereigns & the citizens? Citizens are still British subjects who are called American citizens. The founders were sovereigns without subjects. Citizens are renters.
@wind0wninja ... You are correct. However, Agent Starects keeps babbling about how you have to call yourself a sovereign citizen. Fail! Good post windowninja!
@Tactikalguy1 I don't know if he's an "agent" or not, it doesn't really matter to me.
What I see is he wants to add 2 plus 2 divided by 2 and say the answer is 2. Which looks good on the surface (2+2÷2=2). But refuses to follow protocol, won't recognize procedure, or realize that division comes before addition. Like pulling out all his case law research then telling me to stay on point. Well the point is his interpretations are off because it's all based on false presuppositions ab initio.
The 9th amendment is so that the people can reserve rights that are natural, like traveling. Then they are incorporating back into the first 8 rights in the bill of rights.
These are for those who hasn't provided consent, but legislative representatives has made Federal or State Laws that has encroached on those rights.
@Starects 1) Those were never enumerated for you. 2) You did provide consent if it's born out in the record under the doctrine of silent acquiescence. Which I'm sure it is. 3) You've never read the Law of Nations so you have no idea what the Constitution even is. 4) They can't pass an unjust law because if they did, it had to be "necessary & proper". 5) You ain't under the Magna Carta, you're under the Leiber Code; the War Powers Act.
@wind0wninja If you really want to see your fallacious reasoning turn to dust see: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - 521 U.S. 898.(1997)
STUDY THE CASE and next time you feel the need to debate, bring some supporting authority instead of your wild rhetorical notions or conceptions of “self.”
@Starects I have read the case and all I can say is you don't even understand the words you're reading to comprehend what is being said in those cases. You haven't even attempted to disprove any of the fact I've put foreword and none of these cases do either. you don't understand the difference between People and people, you just wanna carry on about people and citizen. Yeah, there is a dual sovereignty. The first is you free will to chose. The other is created by creators, which you are not.
I am a private attorney general and a federal witness and crime investigator - these laws are self-executing - there is a private sector and a public sector - use the federal reserve account assigned to your all capital letter name for what it was made for - to discharge the obligation of that 14th Amendment fictional legal corporate entity that was started using your private name and traded on the public stock market - when you turn 18 that birth certificate interest is to reduce national debt
fems2112 3 days ago
Another thing they say is that EVERYONE that walks on the land is subject to the laws. I beg to differ, try locking up an original member of one of the recognized tribes. ROFLMAO They (US MILITARY) will KILL you. even if you are a government such as sheriff. This is because they have a treaty with the Queen, and are allies with her majesty. And you will cause a war for locking up one of her allies.
gorgeousdzastr 3 days ago
"So why not turn Americans into terrorists and put them in jail indefinitely?" They are working on it. They already have US citizen listed as a Enemy of the State. rofl. Besides. this so called LAW ONLY applies to US citizens calling themselves Sovereign/Citizens. For a LONG time I have been telling people sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. Yea defendant in error would be proper, till they claim a defendant in error is a terrorist. Eventually US citizens will all be locked up in detainment camps.
gorgeousdzastr 3 days ago
Check this out remove brackets and everything between> replace with apropriate or add it after youtube link.. replace grey part.. )youtube-dot-com(watch?v=d_y-gLm9Hrw&feature=related
this is who started this campaign ..
sovereignfreespirit 1 week ago
your dead wrong and im done with your lame channel after seeing all this tactical guy call me my number hasn't changed and my video's arn't' getting puled 9098393313 and i am a sovereign citizen of the republic of california, and im not a agent or a patsy bro be logical if they are calling us domestic terrorist and paper terrorist. i am the man not the fiction. your the fiction. you belive ever fear mongering article you read?
youngstersgv 1 week ago
@youngstersgv ... Not sure if you are talking to me.
Tactikalguy1 1 week ago
if your up to it id like to ask you a few questions
MsReignman 2 weeks ago
Thanx for the advice and showing people how to discern information.
Thanx to the FBI too for keeping us safe from fraudulent schemes under color of law like the FEDERAL RESERVE and we know that their bills of credit are lawful according to the constitution.Whoops strike that last statement bills of credit are not lawful under the constitution my bad.
keep up the good work nice video.
sentient1macdaddy 3 weeks ago
This is a good sign. If there was nothing to the movement, no one on law enforcement would care. They are trying to discredit the movement because it calls thier bluff.
tntruther 3 weeks ago
AHAHA if I can avoid 1 extra list - hey - why not!
LUV it
Been there
Keep up the faith
Cheers
ChristianArmorOfGod 3 weeks ago
Change your name to "Defendant N. Error" or "Not Atall Guilty."
garbledstoic 3 weeks ago in playlist Sovereign Citizen
Sovereign NATIONAL! not CITIZEN people
LetFreedomSPK 1 month ago
The word, sovereign, is a trigger word for corporate goons. Call yourself a Secured Party Creditor of the United States (corporation). Then say,"I am a flesh and blood man and the sole beneficiary of the trust. I do not consent and waive all benefits."
stopdemockery 1 month ago
@stopdemockery you must waive all benefits by cancelling contracts that show you get benefits. This way they cannot show that you received any valuable consideration from said contracts.
SuperRenegade666 1 month ago
why let anyone tell you what to believe or BE...do your own research and become free as only YOU can determine what free is...or go back to being a debt slave...
empowered65 1 month ago
A sovereign citizen does not make sense. A STATE CITIZEN has the rights of the sovereignty from the sovereign state which he resides in.Ohio L Ins. & T Co. v Debolt 16 How 416 14 L Ed. 997 which states in pertinent part: “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitution, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
LANSING v. SMITH 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) 1829 “The people of this State are the successors of its’ former sovereign are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Kawananakoa v Polyblank 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L Ed. 834 (1907) which states in pertinent part: “A sovereign is exempt from suit,... but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.”
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
So here are some interesting questions; If you waive your sovereign rights once, do you loose them permanently? Do you have to go through a formal sovereignty process or do you merely have to KNOW how to enforce your rights? MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS ET AL., v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL., 1982 S. CT. 394, 455 US 130, 102 S.CT. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 US L. W. 4169 pp 144-148. “It is one thing to find that the Tribe...
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
“It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its’ powers unless it expressly reserves its right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
Here are some interesting court decisions (decided in a court of law, as opposed to being written into law, therefore these are "common law" decisions usable by sovereigns): McDonel v State 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at page 323 it was decided: “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not be a citizen of the United States.”
Tashiro v Jordan 256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123 states in pertinent part: “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship.”
tonyfreire702 1 month ago
@Tactikalguy1 Thank you, you make a very sound point and you talk good sense.
warlock242 1 month ago
These "soveregn-free man-right to travel blah blah blah" people are all out of their fucking minds and borderline retarded.
They talk in circles, play games with words, and are all headed for a fuck load of fines and jail time.
Blahblobify 1 month ago
Soveriegn is supreme ruler. Citizen is the concept of being part of some sort of social structure. Regardless of disputing definitions; what matters is how YOU define such a thing and make that definition understood by the other parties. Either way it doesn't matter what you call yourself, it's the act of understanding the law which will set you free.
A1nitak 1 month ago
The ONLY territory where government employees have authority is federal territory.
djherich 1 month ago
Why are you on a list? You are correct about "sovereign citizen" being the WRONG thing to admit to being. They were trying to set you up...two FBI agents and a VERY large cop came to my door and asked me if I was a sovereign citizen and my response was, "No. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what a sovereign citizen is. But I do know that I am an Article IV free inhabitant pursuant to The AOC of November 15, 1777. I am NOT a United States citizen and do not reside in the United States."
djherich 1 month ago
Pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, one can claim to be a free inhabitant. Google it. It is part of the Organic Laws of the United States of America. Google that too. Article IV free inhabitants are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens. Ed Rivera is a legal genius and I suggest you go to his website and start reading his posts. Free inhabitants don't file and pay taxes. The truth makes you free. w w w d o t edrivera d o t c o m
djherich 1 month ago
Sovereign is god.
And you have to serve somebody.
You are not sovereign.
Just forget that egoist path.
loudwaters9 1 month ago in playlist Dealing with the Police,Bailiffs,Courts,Corporations 2
you don't get it !! Want to see prove of the redemption process? go to stopthepirates.blogspot.(dot)com .
DOWNLOAD this seminar, it'll help you a great deal creditorsincommerce(dot)com/audio-los-angeles-2009.php
brightmannn 1 month ago
Blacks Law Dictionary
teddypenderass 1 month ago
A Subject is a powerful position, under Anglo Saxon, Germanic Common Law, with the right of Subjection comes a Duty of Protection. Every Man has a Duty to protect against the World.
You rights and duties are lost by becoming a Citizen because Civil Law is Roman, Ancestral Traditions are not a Civil Matter. Use you ancestry to claim your rights and duties. See Blacks Law common ancestry and Roscoe Pound Spirit of Common Law
Lancashirefolk 2 months ago
Freedom is more a mental state rather than challenging a court or dealing with a mountain of paperwork.. Dont let anyone tell you what to call yourself man.. the labels are simply more restrictions.
SovereignBeing 2 months ago
SOVEREIGN = SO OVER REIGNS so, who has the reigns on your freedom? you? or them?
contrell69 2 months ago 2
28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a)
fleetwood084 2 months ago
28 U.S.C. 3002
fleetwood084 2 months ago
Lol, I said the same thing to the British Columbia freeman society, no way I am joining any society, because then you can be labelled as a threat, and then a terrorist under the quasi-laws of both the USA, and Canada. I will have to keep my belief secret, so I am not persecuted for my beliefs. Hey wait, isnt the right to believe what you want upheld by the constitution, and the Canadian bill of rights...Guess not, becuase they only apply to federal employees (aka citizens).
MrEvilsun 2 months ago
This guy is a shill...dumb cop hiding behind his uneducated arse.
Oh I pay taxes cause I'm' too lazy to bother to educate myself or learn from a ton of IRS agents who LEFT becuase of the fact TAXES ON LABOR ARE ILLEGAL!.
The IRS is nothing but a mob enforcement for the Central Bankers (who own and run the Unitied States of America Inc.) Nice scare tactic...that is exactly what homeland security wants is bozzo's like you out there spreading their fear mongering.
Claim your birth rights!
Cuzzinski 2 months ago
Thank you for this. I have a child case, they will not give 50/50 time with are child, just to make a pay check to her. thank u for the help.
ccceeeh 3 months ago
sovereignty was a term used to acknowledge the kings soul authority over the land and the people of the land - WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL - MEANS YOU ARE GRANTED BY THE POWERS OF GOD TO RULE YOURSELF -PIECE FULLY NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PUNISH OR TAKE AWAY FROM ANOTHER TO IMPOSE THERE BELIEFS
SamWolfie 3 months ago
Great point. People educate yourself. Thank you, Tactical guy. Their a difference between a peace officer and a police officer - a major one. Just address them as a peace officer, they pledged to uphold the constitution.
igogosh 3 months ago
Wow, that's some first-class crazy talk. If you stay on the conspiracy merry-go-round and talk in circles long enough, you get so dizzy that normal people look like they're walking sideways.
ConserVet 3 months ago
I am Sovereign. my citizenship is in the Kingdom of YHWH. I reside in the united states of America under duress.
I am a peace-keeping man and a loving son of my Father in Heaven.
My Father is the supreme Sovereign, because my Father is Sovereign...so am I.
kelsaych 3 months ago
U talk a lot of sense. Tnx bro ;-)
linphil57 3 months ago
My issue is what gives the "government" the authority to govern us? The declaration of independence states they govern only through consent of the governed. Unless we remove that consent isnt that just a legal presumption? How can they lawfully govern us if we remove that consent?
bind1967 3 months ago
@Jim4634
You can't be a sovereign and a citizen. A citizen is an employee of the corporation. Sovereign citizen is an oxi-moron.
djchrisgeo 4 months ago 19
@djchrisgeo "citizen" is a fancy word for "subject" "subject" is fancy for "slave"
contrell69 2 months ago
@djchrisgeo Makes a valid argument though does that mean since we all live on the same planet we are not all citizens of the planet?
krwoe 1 month ago
@djchrisgeo A sovereign period.
SuperRenegade666 1 month ago
That is a big ole pile of crazy.....good luck with that
MrDaveb67 5 months ago
pulling you over for a "traffic violation" is NOT an emergency, so that's 1 right there. Secondly, under the Constitution and common law, which the Continental US was founded on, if there is NO injured party, you have committed NO crime. Sovereigns being outside of law and not subject to the laws of the U.S. are correct, because there are TWO United States, the Federal and Continental. The Federal ones which regulates commerce is the one cops work for to enforce POLICE-IES..NOT Common LAW.
JediWitness2 5 months ago 16
The feds are using provocateurs to try and get you to incriminate yourself. If you studied the Constitution and the law then it would make more sense. All Americans were made free sovereigns but now they are 14th amendment slaves which is why, via various unrevealed contracts you are subject to the "law". Cops are called Police officers..PolicY(E) officers... they enfroce Corporate POLICIES, NOT the law. When a cops puts his lights on for a NON emergency, he's already broken Federal law...
JediWitness2 5 months ago
how do we know YOUR not a government agent, YOU ARE WHAT YOU PREACH. or.. are you not or are you? ;)
JOINTHERESISTANCE1 5 months ago
Defendant In Error, * A party against whom a writ of error is sued out.
* From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition.
cilcannonvryce 6 months ago
Ay Bro contact me at johnny029@netzero.com I have proof that the Redemtion Process works. In fact I have a friend who Liquidated 4 Billion in it & he has sent me his secrets via internet. Contact me a.s.a.p.
johnny029 6 months ago
Good speech brother.
haley13375 6 months ago
u r a dumb azz and i think u r a fbi drop out
datremo 6 months ago
Now you're making sense...it is more fun when you act crazy!
MmmmYeahSure 6 months ago
Who says you have to accept any title to begin with? If you called the judge "asshole" you'd probably offend him. If they called me "citizen", likewise, I'd likely object to the title and then 'permit' him to address me as something like "superman", "only for the purposes of these proceedings"
krxyt 6 months ago
Wow, so you have no clue as to how this nation was formed??? By people who considered themselves sovereign from King George...They were all Lawyers.. Your an idiot who's afraid to be labeled a truth teller... Go figure...
Tadow001 7 months ago
@Tadow001 This nation was formed by British subjects who wouldn't have done a thing if they where allowed membership in the British good ol' boys club. They where comparatively wealthy landowners and merchants who wanted still more of the pie. I can't recall any of them being described as being an Lawyer as a side line, much less all of them being lawyers
donyunger 5 months ago
Knowledge is Power!!!
OZZTOWN 7 months ago
sovreign citizens commit murder lool murder is a whole new level thats a halm and loss common law situation=HUMAN RIGHTS DISAPPEAR unless self defence which you gotta prove.......but you see all this presidents politicians and police officers get away with anythin(could the be above the law because they know the law)hmmm who knows but we are what we choose to be if there was no law other than common sense a million years ago then why is it around today?....are we persuaded to act a certain way?
shiftas2 9 months ago
you are actually contradicting yourself though and its makeing it more in favour of the opposite
shiftas2 9 months ago
very valid point i didnt think of it like that...a free slave lool its no more than what we are now....the amount of corruptness surrounding it makes it innevitable that it wont work...but just pause and think if everyone stopped being scared of their governments and said no....the tables would turn quite dramatically in our favour
shiftas2 9 months ago
omg they are not terrorists, these laws were made by our founding fathers, and they want to be free without being bulied so since they can't control u now they r terrous, give it up, manipulation not working
Sherayx 9 months ago
another thing, there is people scamming on all that shit.. when ur a sovereign, u dont have to file. the minute u file ur under the jurisdiction of who ever ur filing with. its 1+1=2.. that easy. these people found out that they make money on naive people looking for change. thay may have some info right but there scam artist.
Lonewolf253 9 months ago
she is stupid.. u cant be a sovereign citizen. its a contradiction. the two words cant be put together. u either a sovereign or a citizen...or, how i like to c it for what it is. we are all sovereigns that have a citizenship by being hoodwinked. thats the fact.
Lonewolf253 9 months ago
vada2000 9 months ago
You are sharp tactical guy. I'm really wondering what this sovereign citizen nonsense is all about.
Hephasteus9 9 months ago
i have done some research on this movement and they do call themselves sovereigns but seldom do i hear themselves called sovereign citizens..
Intoxikacion 10 months ago
HI! TACK GUY I'VE WATCHED A SEQUENCE OF YOUR VIDEOS THANKS FOR THE INFO YOU'VE RAISED MY ANTENNA ABOUT A COMMENT YOU MADE IN THE ONE VIDEO ABOUT THE GUY WHO BEAT THE POSSESSION CHARGE YOU SAID YOU THINK THE "STRAWMAN IS BOGUS WELL KINDA GOT MY START WITH THAT MONIKER BUT I'VE DISCOVERED SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE PERTINENT IN ESTABLISHING ONESELF TO GIVE CLAIM TO YOUR RIGHTS IN COMMERCE !!!!
Gmoneyluv4u 10 months ago
Sorry for typo's stupid spell check on phone
maldo72 11 months ago
I just don't understand why the FBI would think anyone who believes in thief right a terrorist I would call it patriot instead. Thus country us going the wrong way... This country is founded on the freedom of peoples rights freedoms and what these courts are doing us just down right wrong and they should be held accountable. What us the government afraid of... And why would they turn on their own people
maldo72 11 months ago
A logically informative video, thanks.
I've started looking into, researching this topic for about 2 weeks.
I have been shown many many lies, traps, snares and illusions.
It makes me soooooo happy, I haven't felt this alive for years.
And still more to be unveiled!
eaobuckrat 11 months ago
can you please clarify what you mean at 5:38 where you tell people not to jump when someone says jump, but at 6:38 you pay taxes because you don't know why you pay taxes - you just do. This seems like a hypocritical line of thinking. Do you pay taxes just because the government says to pay taxes? Help me understand.
mikev118 1 year ago
@mikev118
He explains it, he is ignorant of tax law (as are most if not all of us).
To not pay taxes opens yourself up to legal action.
If you have no full knowledge of tax law, you will shoot yourself in the foot.
Self defeating, arrogant and false pride (my opinion).
If he did understand tax law, then he will choose (options) to pay taxes.
A moral man would pay taxes for the upkeep of society, infrastructure,
wages, salarys ect. Speeding fines for being 5 mph over the limit,
another story.
eaobuckrat 11 months ago
@eaobuckrat
Thanks for helping, but now i'm more confused. So if one does not pay taxes, they are immoral? but we pay because we are ignorant of the tax laws. Then if we become not ignorant of the tax laws and decide not to pay, we are immoral? Hmmm, this is truly a conundrum.
mikev118 11 months ago
@mikev118
If you live in the desert/mountains and pretty much provide for yourself then there would be no problem not paying taxes. If you live in a City, have a decent job, making use of public property and services, paying taxes I believe would be the right thing too do.
It gets complex when morality is thrown into the mix. Try not to over analyse it.
eaobuckrat 11 months ago
@mikev118 Which is it? you are being sarcastic, or trying way too hard to be confused? ;)
donyunger 5 months ago
@eaobuckrat taxes dont pay for ANY of those things. 100 percent of income tax goes directly to the federal reserve as interest on the money they already LOANED our government. our congress has the authority to create our money interest free, but NOT the authority to give that ability to any third party. please explain why not paying income tax is immoral in any way, shape, or form.
cyberpsygen7 10 months ago
@cyberpsygen7 So enlighten to the source of revenue that builds all this public infrastructure.
donyunger 5 months ago
@donyunger i just told you, all the money spent by the federal government comes directly from the federal reserve as a loan, with interest on it. interest taxes go to the minimum payments on all the loans we already have out. but because all the money we have is created by the fed, it can NEVER be enough to pay it back, so we can never be out of debt to them. that is why they created enormous amounts of money out of thin air and bought the banks from all over the world. they own it all now.
cyberpsygen7 5 months ago
@eaobuckrat how can you PROVE that the taxes you pay actually go to paying for anything you are told or think? i.e. upkeep of society, infrastructure, etc? TAXES are all forms of oppression; and to NOT believe that we the republic as a whole would make sure these things would happen.....is a sign....of the WELL OILING of the system...
EntouchNetwork 6 months ago
@EntouchNetwork So what is the source of the revenue that builds the public infrastructure, then,if not taxes? In the event you don't know I recommend you start reading the proper newspapers fully report items off public interest. This is a republic, a republic that has been insuring those things you say a republic as a whole would do. The reason you can't see that is because it's your ignorance is being oiled by ideology.
donyunger 5 months ago
@donyunger ...the better ? would b...."what is the SOURCE that builds the public infrastructure?"...(take out revenue)...the answer is simple for those whom remember....PEOPLE...when Haiti was hit...when Katrina was hit...etc, etc....do u THINK....the PPL whom were devastated ..and NEEDED something (a road/pathway)..waited for REVENUE?? lol...as we saw they not only didnt get revenue...'masters that b"....sat and watched them from surveillance afar...while they died....would U wait for REVENUE?
EntouchNetwork 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donyunger the better ? would b...."what is the SOURCE that builds the public infrastructure?"...(take out revenue)...the answer is simple for those whom remember....PEOPLE...when Haiti was hit...when Katrina was hit...etc, etc....do u THINK....the PPL whom were devastated ..and NEEDED something (a road/pathway)..waited for REVENUE? lol...as we saw they not only didnt get revenue...'masters that b'....sat and watched them from surveillance afar...while they died....would U wait for REVENUE?
EntouchNetwork 5 months ago
@donyunger reading the proper newspapers? hmmm...i don't consider ANYTHING from gooberment/ media based statistics/accounting/and propoganda PROPER....i consider it a waste of paper and the life of a tree that provides me O2..which is farrr more valuable and necessary to LIFE we'd die w/o it...think outside the box...if only for a moment...i doubt u will summarize it as ideology in the future...
EntouchNetwork 5 months ago
@donyunger we are SPIRITS in human bodies attempting to experience life the way we were MEANT to as u can see from EVERY WAR/EVERY CATASTROPHE which has been going on since God KNOWS WHEN...those whom survived...didnt do with w/REVENUE!!! i'm ignorant?....my badonkas! lol...money is not the answer...it is a ponzi scheme. we cannot keep the same system; it HAS 2 b different. "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...and u'd want to encourage this?
EntouchNetwork 5 months ago
@eaobuckrat MORAL men would not CREATE TAXES.....for the upkeep of society and life and culture.....everything else u mentioned is all based on ponzi schemes and institutions that support death, destruction and hatred. and on top of it...if you haven't noticed we r TAXED on just about everything today...so how does one REALLY get out of it....unless that live straight from the Earth....which is what we were MEANT to do....
EntouchNetwork 5 months ago
I'm just a guy.
scabbybuttcrack 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Oh wow, so much cliche and you still miss the mark every time. Does that enigmatic bs work on newly enlisted college kids you try to impress or just high schoolers? My sheltered life, homeless sheltered! Haha ..
N1k1mon 1 year ago
What it boils down to for me is I just don't believe in the external authority hoax. We are all born on this planet and that makes us ALL equal. Someone else's delusion that a title or a badge or a piece of paper has any authority over me whatsoever is in my estimation a mental defect. All this 'legalese' lingo is fictional nonsense. Doesn't exist in nature. The laws of men mean nothing to me. I know it's wrong to murder, steal, rape and breech contracts. Derp. But laws? All man made. Fiction.
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
@AceOfHeart2012 Right, we're all born equal, equal being naked, helpless, and stupid whereby you can't take care of yourself and thus need to be taken care of. The problem seems obvious to me, you didn't come into this world fully cognizant, no one does. Until you come to the age of reason and until you figure out a solution, you're usurping their system whereby you are equal. It might all be fiction but you as well as millions of others still acquiesce.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
Unless you have your own army to force compliance with YOUR orders I would never (and don't) call myself 'sovereign'. A citizen is a fiction. That's how I grasp it. I'm not a citizen or sovereign. Defendant in error is probably cool. I just call myself a 'peaceful inhabitant'. Or 'a living man'.
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
@AceOfHeart2012 Look up the word inhabitant. You can't substitute one fiction for another and call yourself free.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Always learning. Thank you.
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
@AceOfHeart2012 While I wouldn't call citizen fictional, I wouldn't call inhabitant fictional either. Generally you have to be an inhabitant, to be a citizen. Generally because the US Congress as been known to make a non-inhabitant a US citizen to further US policy.
donyunger 5 months ago
@donyunger God > man > woman. Everything else after that is a construct. I.E. A fiction.
AceOfHeart2012 5 months ago
I do like your post thank you for your help!!!
jimsanders1 1 year ago
Just read the Federalists papers writen by Hamilton, Madision, Jay. April, 1961edition (Page 487) Says the State ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. The PEOPLE!!! Then keep reading!!! The Supreme Court ruled that the Federalist papers is the express intent of the authors , and what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Also how the Constitution should be interpeded. Just check it out. Someone who explains this very clearly is Carl Miller,
jimsanders1 1 year ago
@Johnwesterlund don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the whole point is to demonize the proper understanding of law, by taking it too far and making a cult out of it. You still have the right and the duty to know as much as you can about the legal system.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Yeah, that's one of the more brainless comments I've had in a long time, if you equate being part of the sovereign citizen movement with voting for Ron Paul... Then you have no reasoning powers and you're just a troll or a plant, it doesn't make any sense, nothing you said to me did. I say again... I'm steering clear of everything to do with the sovereign movement, the one RP denounces as well.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
@N1k1mon Are you really thinking for yourself are do you just think you're thinking? Just because nothing I said to you makes any sense doesn't mean it doesn't. It just means you lack a great deal of understanding in your sheltered little world. Natural for anyone who continues to buy into lies, self made or otherwise. Ron Paul suggests you read the Constitution and I suggest you do to since he's obviously not telling you everything and obviously haven't read it.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
Thanks again Tactical guy, was actually considering using that "sovereign citizen" stuff in my case...always thought it was a little strange.....
johnwesterlund 1 year ago
"The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja When are you going to get to the "New York" is the Capital of the World claim.... LOL All those cases have been debunked already. That is the motives behind the Anarchy and new Age spiritualistic conscience movement under the guise of Sovereignty. Because " we can control ourselves". Heheheh. Mannn, and Tackey posted your comment in the "special area". How deep does it go. LOL
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects You must be joking considering that neither of those groups gets it either. And you insinuate but provide no proof. You've debunked nothing.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
OTIS M c DONALD, et al v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS GUN CASE;
ROE V. WADE, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) and;
KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).
There isn't any "martial law" that is suppressing the constitution. Those cases above shows that the people still have all rights. Only if they know how to plead them.
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects You don't need more case law, you need a dictionary or 4 (Black's law, Bouvier's, Ballentine's, Webtsers). How can you be sovereign if gotta plead for your rights? The President can sign an executive order into law, that's as dictatorial as in gets. The people have granted civil rights to the extent that they do their duty as trustees of their person. If you do not know what your rights are, you have none. You think you have rights, don't show me someone else's case, show me yours.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja See my latest: A255030. In the Los Angeles Municipal Court on Hill St. Four Counts of misdemeanors
Now you go pull the record. You are all over the place and do not provide any authority to support you position. By the way, I have two Balck's law Dictionaries. You need to show what you have actually done besides of misinterpreting the law.
The Authorities I cite are precisely on point. Also, I am wasting my time here having this discussion with you.
Starects 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Deny consent to be serviced by a court....Something that works GREAT in Canada (same fundamental principles there as here): File a fee schedule with a notary public declaring the costs for your time and services...when a judge gives you an order, you can write him a bill, just like you would get a bill at a restaurant :P
Effective method...as for denying jurisdiction, that prevents the orders when coming at all.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
Notices are a powerful form. Most people do not know that when you are serviced with a ticket or a claim is formed against you, you MUST respond or you go into dishonor. Going into dishonor creates a bad situation for you, because it is implied consent; silence is acquiescence.
The system is commercial; all crimes are commercial. All charges (look up the legal definition) are contract clause breach; being silent when a claim arises against you is acceptance (big issue in our commercial system)
rotnflesh 1 year ago
This is because there are 3 types of Law: Common, Equity, and Maritime. Common Law is unwritten law and only judged by a jury. Equity is legislative and contractual law and deals with contracts and disputes. Maritime is law on the seas (extension of Equity).
Our courts do not operate in common law unless that is the jurisdiction....that is OUR job: Deny equity jurisdiction on our flesh and blood, since we are not contracts. We are Man, and entitled only to common law.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@rotnflesh ...only where the common law is competent to give it.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja That's right....there are hundreds of thousands of cases that are applicable as remedy precedent. The common law grows as time passes; it's never been limited to a stationary number.
Today, we have remedy in common law for almost every single thing you can think of.
If you accept that the conflict/dispute is a equitable offense, then you admit Equity jurisdiction...if you refuse to consent to equitable remedy, you reserve tort remedy. This is the nature of common law.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
This is the most important thing: You decide what jurisdiction you land in. Before arraignment for ANY offense, you are entitled to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings: Is it a civil or criminal action, is there common law remedy, do you retain your right to trial by jury (traffic violations are dispute in excess of $20; never seen one for a smaller amount)...if you act in, and as, a common law adherent, then you object to any equitable procedure. You are not the contract, period.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
Now, you can open dialogue to settle the dispute out of court before the hearing through the use of discovery, but few people ever do. You are entitled to any documents the prosecution is availing themselves of, and the testimony of any witnesses brought against you. Typically, traffic offenses are declared to be "criminal" suits, but the nature of a traffic violation is an "infraction", and there are no "infraction laws"..there are civil laws, and criminal laws; don't let them slip that one in.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
As for discovery: If you attempt to settle a dispute by means of a Constructive Notice requesting the authority of the claimant to bring suit (by offense of Constitutional Right), they typically cannot answer unless you have "injured someone, damaged their property, or committed fraud". If they do not answer a Constructive Notice, they acquiesce through silence and you get a default judgment signed by a notary and issued to a court in public record and the case is dismissed. Judges must concur.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
If you do not agree, explain why. I've used this very concept because they act unconstitutionally and I do not let them foist Equity jurisdiction on my Self; I am a living breathing human being, not a contract, and I have breached no peace nor offended any other Sovereign's rights.
These are the things that apply to We, the People (who are the source and author of the Constitution, which gave license for the government to exist in the first place). We are mainly under common law jurisdiction.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@rotnflesh So I suppose it could be said that the only remedy is Tort.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Exactly. We as human beings are not entitled to equitable remedy; only fictitious entities are; think of the terminology used in a court: You "appear" (nothing can appear since it is already present...we arrive or have "special appearance"), the court "hears" but does not "see" (like with morality and truth..they don't exist; only facts); the judge is the "court" (court, in a legal sense, means forum..i.e., place of debate or discussion. So the judge acts as a fictitious entity)
rotnflesh 1 year ago
We as human beings are only entitled to Common Law tort remedy, because we are human beings acting with and/or against other human beings. We contract in the pursuit of happiness, and that right to contract is unlimited. A corporation (or government) is an intangible Form with no power to interact in the real world/common law with the Man...
So when you "appear" in court and stand for "YOUR NAME", you are acting as representative with full commercial liability for YOUR NAME.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
In a philosophical sense (which is 100% applicable to law), you have no name; you have no date of birth (that you know)...those are either things ascribed to you or hearsay evidence. You do not know when you were born, as you were not aware in the sense of one who has "come of age".
Further, you (as a living soul) have no name because you were not bequeathed one. You only respond to an appellation (a noise, or sound, or combination thereof) for referential purposes.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
So, to solidify this concept for you, corporations and governments are incorporeal and have no real effect except through real people: Sovereigns who have contracted by treaty (corporate charter) for a mutually beneficial (albeit unequally or unfairly) purpose. The U.S.C. defines the Federal government as "A federal corporation." So the Federal government is no less commercial than Wal-Mart; they just have bigger guns and "color of law". They assume every Sovereign is a member of their society.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
But the corporate charter established by the Constitution can be abolished (in commercial law it is called right-of-rescission, and it nullifies any contract, thereby removing its legitimacy) by the People, who are the authors and source of the power the Federal government exercises. We, the People, are the power.
Remember this maxim: Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
And for those wondering how the system veered from these truths as commonplace rule:
Currit tempus contra desides et sui juris contemptores. Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
To refer errors to their origin is to refute them. 3 Co. Inst. 15.
“All statutes and laws enacted by Congress must be in harmony with the Constitution. Any statute or law enacted by Congress that is in contradiction or disharmony with the Constitution is null and void from the beginning. It creates no duties, creates no rights, imposes no obligations or duties upon any Citizen of the united States of America. It is as if it never existed.”Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court, 5 U.S. 137.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@rotnflesh "We the People" does not equal citizens.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@rotnflesh As a trustee over that NAME; notice to agent is notice to principle, notice to principle is notice to agent.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja That is correct (and must be noted or it is plausible deniability).
The Constitution is a unilateral contract for government; it is the People's terms. Being or becoming a citizen only means you agree to the terms of the social contract (i.e., government benefits). However, unless it is declared beforehand that all rights exercised before agreement are held in reservation (without prejudice), then they are waived by contract clause unless noted as an unintentional act.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
What people don't realize is that government action that goes against the Constitution is an unlawful act, and that it may be both UNLAWFUL and LEGAL at the same time. This is because the very government that produces statutory law determines the legality of those laws and (unless the People rise in protest) attempt to disregard the questions arising from the application of those laws.
If the Supreme Court members know a law is unconstitutional, they can do nothing until it is brought to them.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
The People are the Law. We are God's children, and second to him in authority; God -> Man -> Constitution -> Government -> Citizen.
God created-->(Man) created -->(Constitution) created -->(Government) created -->Citizen: Obeys ->Gov obeys ->Constitution obeys -> Man obeys -> God.
Is there anything wrong with that line of authority?
rotnflesh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is why "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." DoI.
Anyone interested in learning how the DoI and Const. actually work and what the clauses really mean?
w w w(dot)constitutionalconcepts(dot)org
Check it, seriously.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@rotnflesh yes, there's a great deal wrong with that line of authority. Government's may create citizens (of that government) but why should anyone be compelled to become a citizen of that government? Why can we not choose to simply be Men? Is that not our right? Also, why must we create government? Why can't we just be a man amongst men?
scabbybuttcrack 1 year ago
@scabbybuttcrack Citizens were declared subjects (those owing allegiance and compliance to the state) when Rome was in it's crumbling state (around 200 A.D.). The title "citizen" in the US is not supposed to be seen in this light, in the US, but has been established that way through the 14th Amendment: Rather than us being citizens by choice, we are given citizen status from the Government through the Constitutional Amendment passed illegally by the Northern Union.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
Those who haven't studied history of the Civil War (most people) do not know that the North FORCED the South to be a party to the 14th Amendment....for those who do not know how commercial law works (the Constitution falls under the Laws of Commerce in that it is an agreement between all parties for certain stipulations and borders), "a meeting of the minds" is a total agreement made voluntarily without coercion, threat of force, or duress. For a contract to be valid, it must meet that criteria.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
Since the North FORCED the South to sign the 14th Amendment, it is null and void. So establishing a citizenship based on it is a fallacy...by extension, forcing people to pay taxes based on this fallacious doctrine is "theft by deception", a high crime.
For a greater context in how the Gov. is illegitimate, consider that Congress was rendered incapable of passing legislation when the Southern congressmen abandoned the Congress before the War. That was never fixed either.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
As for "just being a man", everything we do is consented to. Quit consenting to be governed, and lets begin abolishing this illegitimate government and reinstituting the original; the one that conformed to the Constitution and was too afraid to step beyond the boundaries of it.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@scabbybuttcrack If all men were angels, there would be no need for government.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja And btw: if they attempt to litigate you in a criminal action, there must be a corpus delecti (body of a crime)...if there is one, there is not even evidence of a criminal act. In traffic violations, speeding has no corpus delecti; "illegal parking" has no corpus delecti; rolling through stop signs leaves no corpus delecti.
Any corpus delecti involved in travelling by means of automobile would be a corpse or damaged property. There was none in a speeding infraction.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@rotnflesh Not sure that's any long term solution either. If you read, UCC 5-103 scope "A term in an agreement or undertaking generally excusing liability or generally limiting remedies for failure to preform obligations is not sufficient to vary the obligations prescribed by this article."
Not saying things like this don't work temporarily. But with no standing to do bills of exchange it could still bite you. I know they will prosecute 65 year old cases so the system has endless patience.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja UCC 1-308 reserves your rights prior to contracting. That means any/all birth/inalienable rights. You cannot waive them or contract them away by reserving your rights without prejudice. NO knowledgeable public official likes to take on someone who has signed all of their legal documents without prejudice and knows what it means. Rights are therefore not prejudiced through contract, and rights supersede privilege obligations.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
The UCC is the evidence of commercial contract in all law. All signatures one makes are contract signatures: signing for a credit statement, applying for a DL, for SS, for a public benefit.
Sometime, you should look up the legal definitions of "Submit", "Apply", "Register". Their legal application is literally that of a subject and not a Sovereign; this is where Conditional Acceptance (which is an integral part of commercial law) becomes extremely important.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
When you want something from the government, you SUBMIT an APPLICATION for REGISTRATION. Think about it.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
The point is Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393 [1856]. stated: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
As, "a constituent member of THIS sovereignty.” Not your sovereignty, Not the sovereignty, but "this sovereignty" "as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja You're not making much sense here. If anyone claims lack of jurisdiction and the court agrees that it doesn't have the power to invoke the jurisdiction as adjudged in: RALPH v.THE POLICE COURT.
How then can you imply that the people are not sovereign against such jurisdiction.
Common sense would tell the normal man otherwise. You're not making sense here at all. NOW THAT IS AN OXYMORON! THE COURT SAYS THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.PERIOD!! WHO HAS THE POWER THEN: THE PEOPLE!!
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects "Supposing this not to be taxed for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to it being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life..." Padelford. Read: Vattel if you want "authority".
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja O.K, on that precise point I will agree, however, you have brought up another issue to be approached. As I remained on the point of the blogs reference to Sovereign Citizens being an oxymoron. Which is a fatally flawed suggestion. Approaching the matter in the context you argue, it has merit, but as Congress under the commerce clause and Taxing powers have not been approached in such a matter correctly to the face of the statues since the Federal Reserves Act in 1913 on consent.
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects A tender of bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to . To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a nation. And if it can bind a nation it can bind you.
If you're reading the Constitution and you're not reading the Law of Nations, you're not reading the Constitution.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Yes! The Universal Law of Human Rights.... amazing, isn't it?
People say "I have Constitutional rights!" HOGWASH! You have universal Human Rights....the Constitution is the framework for the Fed. Gov., a treaty between the States. The Fed. Gov. has very basic powers BESTOWED upon it; they are shared powers, not absolute powers, and any power not granted in the organic Constitution are void ab initio.
rotnflesh 1 year ago
And for those who would disagree with the LUHR (I said Universal Law...thats backwards), note it is an ACKNOWLEDGMENT, not an endowment, of the United Nations...and that any Man (woman or man) who disregards those rights is fully commercially liable, because all nations operate in a commercial capacity (contracts, baby! yeaha!)
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@Starects Every human being is a Sovereign...the States are republics (Sovereigns delegated to speak for the whole) and the Constitution is a treaty between the States; it forms the Federal Gov., who has VERY SPECIFIC powers they have overstepped alot.
We are Sovereign because we are the source of the Law as written in this nation. It goes from God, to Man, to Constitution, to Government, to Citizen (citizens have duties to Government; that is not how our relationship is supposed to work)
rotnflesh 1 year ago
@Starects "We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, ----
rotnflesh 1 year ago
but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases; United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
rotnflesh 1 year ago
This is where the Supreme Court determines what a Sovereign who is a citizen is, and what a Federal Citizen is: everyone is a Sovereign, and States are there to protect and shield those Sovereigns' rights from abrogation by other Sovereigns or other governmental forms.
Federal citizens are Sovereigns who have waived certain rights for the benefits the government offers in fealty (as public employees without title)
rotnflesh 1 year ago
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA
Why separate categories for sovereigns & the citizens? Citizens are still British subjects who are called American citizens. The founders were sovereigns without subjects. Citizens are renters.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja ... You are correct. However, Agent Starects keeps babbling about how you have to call yourself a sovereign citizen. Fail! Good post windowninja!
Tactikalguy1 1 year ago
@Tactikalguy1 I don't know if he's an "agent" or not, it doesn't really matter to me.
What I see is he wants to add 2 plus 2 divided by 2 and say the answer is 2. Which looks good on the surface (2+2÷2=2). But refuses to follow protocol, won't recognize procedure, or realize that division comes before addition. Like pulling out all his case law research then telling me to stay on point. Well the point is his interpretations are off because it's all based on false presuppositions ab initio.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
The 9th amendment is so that the people can reserve rights that are natural, like traveling. Then they are incorporating back into the first 8 rights in the bill of rights.
These are for those who hasn't provided consent, but legislative representatives has made Federal or State Laws that has encroached on those rights.
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects 1) Those were never enumerated for you. 2) You did provide consent if it's born out in the record under the doctrine of silent acquiescence. Which I'm sure it is. 3) You've never read the Law of Nations so you have no idea what the Constitution even is. 4) They can't pass an unjust law because if they did, it had to be "necessary & proper". 5) You ain't under the Magna Carta, you're under the Leiber Code; the War Powers Act.
And I could go on because your points are moot.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja If you really want to see your fallacious reasoning turn to dust see: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - 521 U.S. 898.(1997)
STUDY THE CASE and next time you feel the need to debate, bring some supporting authority instead of your wild rhetorical notions or conceptions of “self.”
Starects 1 year ago
@Starects I have read the case and all I can say is you don't even understand the words you're reading to comprehend what is being said in those cases. You haven't even attempted to disprove any of the fact I've put foreword and none of these cases do either. you don't understand the difference between People and people, you just wanna carry on about people and citizen. Yeah, there is a dual sovereignty. The first is you free will to chose. The other is created by creators, which you are not.
wind0wninja 1 year ago