# Stuff and Things > Sights and Sounds >  Sovereign Citizen Fails

## Matt

God bless these police officers in the face of these ignorant and hysterical folks who think they are not beholden to the laws of this nation....because of ______. 

Like the first girl in this video. She's quoting the Articles of Confederation. What? That was completely replaced by the US Constitution and nullified in 1787 lol. Oh, and as soon as the cop touched her she started screaming rape. 100% a stereotypical liberal snowflake.     :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## nonsqtr

The fake sovereign citizens give the real ones a bad name.

You know what "sovereign" means, right?

----------


## Calypso Jones

that's funny.

----------


## Oskar

There is a right to travel.

----------


## Oskar

This is my favorite SC video.

----------


## Dan40

> The fake sovereign citizens give the real ones a bad name.
> 
> You know what "sovereign" means, right?


An old British gold coin?

----------


## Dan40

> There is a right to travel.


Within the posted speed limit.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> This is my favorite SC video.


oh mine too..i was just going to post it.   He has this poor guy so confused at the end it is hilarious.

----------

Oskar (09-18-2017)

----------


## Iron

> There is a right to travel.


You do not have the right to drive a vehicle down public roads. The right to travel refers to individual states/municipalities not being able to bar you from entering. It has nothing to do with cars.


There is a very high correlation between pot use and this sovereign citizen bullshit. When this kind of crap gets pulled on me its always because of warrants or drugs. I once ended up arresting a passenger of a car because the driver pulled this stupid bullshit. Eventually I became persuasive enough (meaning I scared the guy lol) to convince the guy to give me his ID. The passenger still refused. I used the drivers identity to find out who the passenger was thanks to a neighboring county. Boom...warrant....boom...arrest....all because I decided to ask some people sitting in a library parking lot in the middle of the night what they were doing and the driver getting defensive. Being defensive is a big clue you are up to no good. And pushing the issue is good police work. If he would have just gave me his license at the get go, I wouldnt have even checked the passenger.  :Smile:

----------

JustPassinThru (09-18-2017)

----------


## Matt

Oh boy. None of you are sovereign citizens are you? That wouldn't be good.

----------


## Dan40

> You do not have the right to drive a vehicle down public roads. The right to travel refers to individual states/municipalities not being able to bar you from entering. It has nothing to do with cars.
> 
> 
> There is a very high correlation between pot use and this sovereign citizen bullshit. When this kind of crap gets pulled on me its always because of warrants or drugs. I once ended up arresting a passenger of a car because the driver pulled this stupid bullshit. Eventually I became persuasive enough (meaning I scared the guy lol) to convince the guy to give me his ID. The passenger still refused. I used the drivers identity to find out who the passenger was thanks to a neighboring county. Boom...warrant....boom...arrest....all because I decided to ask some people sitting in a library parking lot in the middle of the night what they were doing and the driver getting defensive. Being defensive is a big clue you are up to no good. And pushing the issue is good police work. If he would have just gave me his license at the get go, I wouldnt have even checked the passenger.


You can't beat them until they understand?  Shame.

I wouldn't last a week as a cop.  I'd whale on idiots as most cops must want to do.

----------


## Oskar

> Oh boy. None of you are sovereign citizens are you? That wouldn't be good.


Of course I am.

What are you? A slave?

----------

nonsqtr (09-19-2017)

----------


## Matt

> Of course I am.
> 
> What are you? A slave?


A college student. So. Yes.

----------

nonsqtr (09-19-2017),Traddles (09-19-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> There is a right to travel.


The right to travel is an interstate provision in Article IV's privileges and immunity clause, which has an English common law history tied to commerce, not intrastate.

----------

2cent (09-19-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> A college student. So. Yes.


Not far removed...in fact, or in history.

American slavery started with indentured servitude...whereas a boy, young person or immigrant would be bound to a "master" (usually a recognized trade master) to learn a trade, and work the shop and home, in return for his keep.  And it continued in England long after American slavery and indenture were outlawed.

----------

Matt (09-19-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

I can feel so sorry for the cops sometime.

One of my co-workers was into that nonsense.   No bank account.  Tried to get a major defense corporation to pay him in cash, tried to get them to not withhold FICA taxes, the works.

He carried gold coins in his briefcase.  When he needed cash he'd pull one out and go to one of those places that bought gold.

Eventually got arrested for tax evasion or some such crap.

Oh, and he was also looking for investors to set up a bank in Belize.

Weird shit.  Seriously weird.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The right to travel is an interstate provision in Article IV's privileges and immunity clause, which has an English common law history tied to commerce, not intrastate.



"Right to travel" is nice.

However....there's no "right to operate a motor vehicle" listed in the Constitution.   Are they going to deny they were operating the vehicle?

Well, of course.

The Fourth Amendment permits stopping travelers upon probable cause.  Say, like "operating a motor vehicle at speeds in excess of posted speed limits".

No wonder the cops get frustrated.  All they want to do is collect their tax and move on to the next prey.  They have a quota to meet.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Not far removed...in fact, or in history.
> 
> American slavery started with indentured servitude...whereas a boy, young person or immigrant would be bound to a "master" (usually a recognized trade master) to learn a trade, and work the shop and home, in return for his keep.  And it continued in England long after American slavery and indenture were outlawed.


Benjamin Franklin was apprenticed to a printer in Boston and he fled to Philly to escape those responsibilities.

----------


## Oskar

> "Right to travel" is nice.
> 
> However....there's no "right to operate a motor vehicle" listed in the Constitution.   Are they going to deny they were operating the vehicle?


A private car is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are those used for commercial purposes, or operated "for hire", which the state can require a license for its operation.

The right to travel means that free people may travel on the public roads using the ordinary transportation of the day.

----------


## Iron

> A private car is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are those used for commercial purposes, or operated "for hire", which the state can require a license for its operation.
> 
> The right to travel means that free people may travel on the public roads using the ordinary transportation of the day.


What genius put that BS in your head? I would suggest spending more time in reality and less time in alternate realities created by pea brains who misinterpret the law.

Let me guess, you think taxes are voluntary as well? Ask Wesley Snipes how that worked out for him.

----------


## Iron

> You can't beat them until they understand?  Shame.
> 
> I wouldn't last a week as a cop.  I'd whale on idiots as most cops must want to do.


Just gotta be mean as hell sometimes.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Oh boy. None of you are sovereign citizens are you? That wouldn't be good.





> What genius put that BS in your head? I would suggest spending more time in reality and less time in alternate realities created by pea brains who misinterpret the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think taxes are voluntary as well? Ask Wesley Snipes how that worked out for him.


Once again I ask you both - what does the word "sovereign" mean?




> Of course I am.
>  What are you? A slave?


Oskar has it right. 

The "Sovereign" is the person making the law. The Sovereign says "I declare..." and whatever comes out of his mouth after that becomes the law.

Look up the word - definition 1 says "supreme ruler" - well, what is it a supreme ruler does that no one else can do? He can have you arrested for no reason at all! Right? He can "make the law". His word is law.

Definition 2 - possessing supreme or ultimate power. Well, what "power" does the government have? It's the law! Whoever makes the law, has the power.



So now - I ask you - *who* is it in this country, who makes the law? 

It is *==> YOU <==*, is it not?

You are a "sovereign citizen", via your representatives. You elect your representatives, and delegate your law-making power to them, so they can make law on your behalf. The only way the Congress critters become "sovereign" is if they usurp their (your) power.

Amirite?

----------


## Dan40

> A private car is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are those used for commercial purposes, or operated "for hire", which the state can require a license for its operation.
> 
> The right to travel means that free people may travel on the public roads using the ordinary transportation of the day.


NO.

To travel on a public highway is allowed on foot.  If you are operating a powered vehicle of any kind, you must have:

A license appropriate to that conveyance.

Proof of ownership of that conveyance.

The conveyance must be registered and carry a license plate.

The conveyance must be insured to the minimum required by law.

The driver/conveyance must obey all official signage posted on the public road.  Including, but not limited to, the speed limits.

You are sadly confusing travel which is going from one place to another, with driving, which is operating a motor vehicle of any type.

----------

Iron (09-19-2017)

----------


## 2cent

> NO.
> 
> To travel on a public highway is allowed on foot.


When was the last time you've read the sign upon entering a highway?  ALL specifically state, "NO PEDESTRIANS."  



> If you are operating a powered vehicle of any kind, you must have:
> 
> A license appropriate to that conveyance.
> 
> Proof of ownership of that conveyance.
> 
> The conveyance must be registered and carry a license plate.
> 
> The conveyance must be insured to the minimum required by law.
> ...


And all of those laws override the "right to travel unencumbered", which is covered in Article IV's "privileges and immunity" clause, just as @Tennyson pointed out.

----------

Oskar (09-19-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> When was the last time you've read the sign upon entering a highway?  ALL specifically state, "NO PEDESTRIANS."


I have seen No Pedestrians signs on Interstate Highways, but not on lesser highways.  Federal or state.  And city streets are also "public roads" and they build sidewalks for pedestrians.  Often miles of sidewalks where no pedestrian has ever considered walking.  But that is government efficiency.

_RRAAAaaaGH!_

----------


## Iron

> NO.
> 
> To travel on a public highway is allowed on foot.  If you are operating a powered vehicle of any kind, you must have:
> 
> A license appropriate to that conveyance.
> 
> Proof of ownership of that conveyance.
> 
> The conveyance must be registered and carry a license plate.
> ...


I should print this post out on business cards and hand them to the idiots who argue about the right to travel. Well put.

----------


## Hillofbeans

You have the sovereign right to be stupid, it's a choice sometimes, like these idiots in the video.

----------


## pinqy

> Once again I ask you both - what does the word "sovereign" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Oskar has it right. 
> 
> The "Sovereign" is the person making the law. The Sovereign says "I declare..." and whatever comes out of his mouth after that becomes the law.
> 
> Look up the word - definition 1 says "supreme ruler" - well, what is it a supreme ruler does that no one else can do? He can have you arrested for no reason at all! Right? He can "make the law". His word is law.
> ...


But in common usage, "sovereign citizen" refers to adherents of the sovereign citizen movement, who hold that they are not citizens of the United States, but citizens of their particular state, and they owe no duty or allegiance to the Federal government and are not subject to any Federal laws.

----------


## Dan40

> But in common usage, "sovereign citizen" refers to adherents of the sovereign citizen movement, who hold that they are not citizens of the United States, but citizens of their particular state, and they owe no duty or allegiance to the Federal government and are not subject to any Federal laws.


i.e. baloney.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> NO.
> 
> To travel on a public highway is allowed on foot.  If you are operating a powered vehicle of any kind, you must have:
> 
> A license appropriate to that conveyance.
> 
> Proof of ownership of that conveyance.
> 
> The conveyance must be registered and carry a license plate.
> ...


This illustrates the problem of the "Sovereign Citizen" crowd:  They craft their OWN definitions, and narratives, and expect that police, prosecutors, judges and tax collectors will be just BOWLED OVER by their Magic Words.

And what happens is what Iron and others are alluding to.

These people are STUPID.  They have no idea what the law reads or that they don't have the power to exempt themselves from it.  They read of wacky court rulings, and decide it's, not judicial corruption and legislation from the bench, but those Magic Words.

It is not.  And as some schlub on the street, you have little.  If you are related to a judge, a Mafia goon, or a Clinton, you have power...but as some slob operating a car with no registration, a self-constructed license card, and no insurance...you are gonna go to JAIL.

And this law, they reject, defines a Motor Vehicle.  They don't have to like it; but it's not their option to accept it.  The legislatures have decreed it and the police enforce it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I can feel so sorry for the cops sometime.
> 
> One of my co-workers was into that nonsense.   No bank account.  Tried to get a major defense corporation to pay him in cash, tried to get them to not withhold FICA taxes, the works.
> 
> He carried gold coins in his briefcase.  When he needed cash he'd pull one out and go to one of those places that bought gold.
> 
> Eventually got arrested for tax evasion or some such crap.
> 
> Oh, and he was also looking for investors to set up a bank in Belize.
> ...


As someone who owns krugerrands...and has bought, and sold...I can tell you right now, NOBODY, in the broad swath of the country in which I've lived, the last ten years...NOBODY pays CASH for gold anymore.

They don't report gold sales.  Yet.  For some reason silver sales have to be reported, over 100 oz.; but not (yet) gold.

But nobody is trading by cash.  Checks, always.

Something else:  Now the banks/credit unions are required to ASK what the check is FOR or FROM.   Two credit unions and three branches of Chase, in Wisconsin and Washington State, have asked me when I deposited a four-figure check.

----------


## Oskar

> What genius put that BS in your head? I would suggest spending more time in reality and less time in alternate realities created by pea brains who misinterpret the law.


Obviously not a law enforcement officer.

You guys really are misnamed.

It should be "person responsible for maintaining the corrupt system for the elite."

----------


## Oskar

> Let me guess, you think taxes are voluntary as well?


Seeing as you are primarily paid by taxpayer dollars (unless you moonlight somewhere very awesome), you aren't exactly objective when it comes to whether or not taxes should be paid, when, by, or to whom.

----------


## Oskar

> Ask Wesley Snipes how that worked out for him.


A black man committed a crime? What's new?

----------


## Oskar

> Once again I ask you both - what does the word "sovereign" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Oskar has it right. 
> 
> The "Sovereign" is the person making the law. The Sovereign says "I declare..." and whatever comes out of his mouth after that becomes the law.
> 
> Look up the word - definition 1 says "supreme ruler" - well, what is it a supreme ruler does that no one else can do? He can have you arrested for no reason at all! Right? He can "make the law". His word is law.
> ...


 :Applause: 

"Here, the people rule".

- President Gerald Ford

----------


## Oskar

Ever notice that law enforcement officers are not required to be, and thus are not experts on the law?

----------


## Oskar

> NO.
> 
> To travel on a public highway is allowed on foot.


Try doing that on the 405 freeway at rush hour. 

Walking on a freeway is only allowed if 

(a) you are already on the freeway and your vehicle breaks down and you are either trying to reach the next exit to effect a repair or returning to the vehicle with the purpose of removing it from the roadway.

or 

(b) You are traveling _through_ and there is no other viable roadway available (think 1-80 in Nevada or I-70 in Colorado).

The common conveyance of today is the automobile and the right to travel does not require a license.

Only the use of a vehicle for commercial purposes requires a license.

Drivers licenses for personal travel are unconstitutional.

----------


## Iron

> Ever notice that law enforcement officers are not required to be, and thus are not experts on the law?


Sure are a lot of experts getting their dumb asses hauled to jail lately to discuss their totally legal actions with other experts.

----------


## Oskar

> I have seen No Pedestrians signs on Interstate Highways, but not on lesser highways.


But you said the right to travel means using a public highway on foot. 

Foot travel is no longer the common mode of transportation.

----------


## Oskar

> Sure are a lot of experts getting their dumb asses hauled to jail lately to discuss their totally legal actions with other experts.


Of course there are. You serve a corrupt system. 

What did you take your oath to defend and uphold - the constitution or a paycheck?

----------


## Oskar

> But in common usage, "sovereign citizen" refers to adherents of the sovereign citizen movement, who hold that they are not citizens of the United States, but citizens of their particular state, and they owe no duty or allegiance to the Federal government and are not subject to any Federal laws.


This is true.

Look at the Electoral College.

The _states_ elect the president.

Do you want a national popular vote?

----------


## Oskar

> As someone who owns krugerrands...and has bought, and sold...I can tell you right now, NOBODY, in the broad swath of the country in which I've lived, the last ten years...NOBODY pays CASH for gold anymore.
> 
> They don't report gold sales.  Yet.  For some reason silver sales have to be reported, over 100 oz.; but not (yet) gold.
> 
> But nobody is trading by cash.  Checks, always.
> 
> Something else:  Now the banks/credit unions are required to ASK what the check is FOR or FROM.   Two credit unions and three branches of Chase, in Wisconsin and Washington State, have asked me when I deposited a four-figure check.


The constitution says that only gold and silver are legal tender. (Article I, Section 10).

Look at your dollar bill closely nest time you take one out of your pocket.

You don't own that dollar bill - Janet Yellen owns it.

Federal Reserve Notes are unconstitutional.

----------


## Iron

> Of course there are. You serve a corrupt system.


The only thing corrupt about our system is the liberal judges who are soft on crime and let thugs off early to commit more crimes. Our justice system is so fair and lenient it is its own worst enemy.



> What did you take your oath to defend and uphold - the constitution or a paycheck?


What does it matter? Neither say driving is a right.

----------


## Oskar

> What does it matter?


Is this what you said when you were sworn in?

----------


## Iron

> Is this what you said when you were sworn in?


Yes, Oskar, when I was sworn in I said "What does it matter?"


You are too stupid to have a conversation with.

----------

JustPassinThru (09-19-2017)

----------


## Oskar

Drivers licenses and automobile registration are all about one thing - making money for the STATE.

LEO'S are not "protecting public safety" when they check for licenses and registration - they are acting as enforcers for a racket.

Know what the difference is between the state and a Mafia crime family?

The law.

----------


## Oskar

> Yes, Oskar, when I was sworn in I said "What does it matter?"


If that is not what you said then, then why are you saying it now?

Have you become that jaded?

----------


## Oskar

> You are too stupid to have a conversation with.


I'm delighted to hear you say that. 

As a rule, I tend to not speak to LEO's when they are in uniform or on duty.

After hours, at a cop bar, maybe.

_In vino, veritas_.

----------


## pinqy

> This is true.
> 
> Look at the Electoral College.
> 
> The _states_ elect the president.
> 
> Do you want a national popular vote?


I'm not sure how you think that means that you are not a U.S. citizen or bound by its laws.

----------


## Dan40

> Drivers licenses and automobile registration are all about one thing - making money for the STATE.
> 
> LEO'S are not "protecting public safety" when they check for licenses and registration - they are acting as enforcers for a racket.
> 
> Know what the difference is between the state and a Mafia crime family?
> 
> The law.


Yep, 

*THE LAW*

Passed by the people elected to represent YOU.

----------


## Matt

This was _supposed_ to be a fun thread. Hindsight fail, I guess.  :Geez:

----------

nonsqtr (09-20-2017)

----------


## pinqy

> The constitution says that only gold and silver are legal tender. (Article I, Section 10).


"_No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility._

The Federal government is not a state, so section 10 does not apply to the Federal government.

----------


## Oskar

> Yep, 
> 
> *THE LAW*
> 
> Passed by the people elected to represent YOU.


Democrats run this state and they don't represent me.

----------


## Oskar

> "_No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility._
> 
> The Federal government is not a state, so section 10 does not apply to the Federal government.


Section 10 says that a state shall not make anything but gold and silver be legal tender for payment of debts. 

That implies that gold and silver are the legal tender of the United States.

They still are.

Note too that a federal power per the constitution is to _coin_ money.

Now a private oligarchy called the Federal Reserve _prints_ money.

Entirely unconstitutional.

----------

2cent (09-20-2017),Tennyson (09-19-2017)

----------


## Hillofbeans

I find it hard to believe anyone here would attempt to argue this, but, there it is.

----------


## Tennyson

> Section 10 says that a state shall not make anything but gold and silver be legal tender for payment of debts. 
> 
> That implies that gold and silver are the legal tender of the United States.
> 
> They still are.
> 
> Note too that a federal power per the constitution is to _coin_ money.
> 
> Now a private oligarchy called the Federal Reserve _prints_ money.
> ...


And the Founders made very specific statements against paper money.

----------

Oskar (09-19-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Democrats run this state and they don't represent me.


What you mean is that you do not like how they represent you, but they still do.  I once lived in California and loved the area but hated the politics.  And Moved to Texas. _ TRAVEL,_ you're free to do so.

----------


## Oskar

> What you mean is that you do not like how they represent you, but they still do.


I have no problem with how they represent their constituents. 

They sit in a room up in Sacramento, talk and vote.

I am not their constituent because they do not represent me.

I am not a Democrat.

----------


## pinqy

> Section 10 says that a state shall not make anything but gold and silver be legal tender for payment of debts. 
> 
> That implies that gold and silver are the legal tender of the United States.


no it doesn't. It means STATES cannot print their own notes for use as tender for debts, not use any metal but gold or silver. It in no way puts restrictions on the Federal government.



> Note too that a federal power per the constitution is to _coin_ money.


And the very next paragraph gives authority to punish counterfeiting the securities and coin of the United States. Which means the Federal government can print paper money or it couldn't punish people for counterfeiting it.



> Now a private oligarchy called the Federal Reserve _prints_ money.


No they don't. The Treasury does.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Democrats run this state and they don't represent me.



They don't have to represent you.

They're making the laws that you must live under, if you live in California.

"Sovereign citizenship" is a friggin' joke.

----------


## Tennyson

> no it doesn't. It means STATES cannot print their own notes for use as tender for debts, not use any metal but gold or silver. It in no way puts restrictions on the Federal government.
> 
> And the very next paragraph gives authority to punish counterfeiting the securities and coin of the United States. Which means the Federal government can print paper money or it couldn't punish people for counterfeiting it.
> 
> No they don't. The Treasury does.


There is no constitutional power for the federal government to print paper money. That concept came about during the Reconstruction Congress. Paper money is another Supreme Court created constitutional concept. 

Most of everything that Oskar posted can be found in Article 1, Section 9 as a limitation on the federal government.

----------

2cent (09-20-2017),Oskar (09-19-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> As someone who owns krugerrands...and has bought, and sold...I can tell you right now, NOBODY, in the broad swath of the country in which I've lived, the last ten years...NOBODY pays CASH for gold anymore.


This was back in the ABL days, around 2000 or so.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Drivers licenses for personal travel are unconstitutional.


Ah

A Kool-Aid drinking sovereign.

Driver's licenses are issued by the STATES and hence not subject to the Constitution.

Those morons were "travelling".

Those morons were also operating a motor vehicle, a matter not addressed by the Constitution directly and hence covered by Amendments Nine and Ten.

----------


## Sled Dog

> A private car is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are those used for commercial purposes, or operated "for hire", which the state can require a license for its operation.
> 
> The right to travel means that free people may travel on the public roads using the ordinary transportation of the day.



Cut the bullshit.

A "motor vehicle" is a wheeled vehicle for ground transport that does not require tracks, which also has a motor or engine in it.

Spare us the bullshit.  We have a lot less patience for morons, and not much at all for those that have already been banned multiple times.

----------


## Sled Dog

> But in common usage, "sovereign citizen" refers to adherents of the sovereign citizen movement, who hold that they are not citizens of the United States, but citizens of their particular state, and they owe no duty or allegiance to the Federal government and are not subject to any Federal laws.


They can hold anything they want.   Just like Monica.

Doesn't change the fact that the 14th Amendment made them RESIDENTS of the state they reside in and CITIZENS of the United States.

----------


## Oskar

> Ah
> 
> A Kool-Aid drinking sovereign.
> 
> Driver's licenses are issued by the STATES and hence not subject to the Constitution.
> 
> Those morons were "travelling".
> 
> Those morons were also operating a motor vehicle, a matter not addressed by the Constitution directly and hence covered by Amendments Nine and Ten.


Are you really saying that states are not covered by the Constitution? 

Why did you contradict yourself by mentioning Amendment 10?

----------


## Oskar

> They can hold anything they want.   Just like Monica.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the 14th Amendment made them RESIDENTS of the state they reside in and *CITIZENS of the United States*.


I never chose to become part of that corporation.

----------


## Sled Dog

Your right to travel stops at my fence.

----------

Oskar (09-20-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I never chose to become part of that corporation.


Nobody cares.

Your either a citizen, a legal alien, or a fucking invader.

No other options exist.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Are you really saying that states are not covered by the Constitution? 
> 
> Why did you contradict yourself by mentioning Amendment 10?



Are you really saying you're so ignorant you believe this is a matter open to debate?

Go away, again, troll.

----------


## Oskar

> Nobody cares.
> 
> Your either a citizen, a legal alien, or a fucking invader.
> 
> No other options exist.


I agree. 

I am a soveriegn citizen of California.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Section 10 says that a state shall not make anything but gold and silver be legal tender for payment of debts. 
> 
> That implies that gold and silver are the legal tender of the United States.



No, actually it doesn't. The reason for that clause is they didn't want the States competing against each other on a currency basis. At the time, each state had its own currency, there were Virginia dollars issued by Virginia banks, and Pennsylvania dollars issued by Pennsylvania banks, and if they had unequal values you can see the problem (in terms of "interstate commerce", especially). The purpose of this clause was to prevent Virginia and Pennsylvania from entering into a "currency war" at the banking level, where banks would compete for customers by devaluing the currency. Similarly, if you could pay a debt in Virginia it could cost you either twice as much or half as much as if you paid it in Pennsylvania.

----------


## nonsqtr

> There is no constitutional power for the federal government to print paper money. That concept came about during the Reconstruction Congress. Paper money is another Supreme Court created constitutional concept. 
> 
> Most of everything that Oskar posted can be found in Article 1, Section 9 as a limitation on the federal government.


No, it wasn't Reconstruction, it was *Lincoln*. It was the National Currency Act of 1862 and 1864, which is the first time ever that banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral. And the reason for it was, because Lincoln had borrowed money from the Russians and he couldn't pay it back. And he needed more to pursue and conclude the war. Lincoln created the "greenback", not the Supreme Court.

----------


## Oskar

> No, actually it doesn't. The reason for that clause is they didn't want the States competing against each other on a currency basis. At the time, each state had its own currency, there were Virginia dollars issued by Virginia banks, and Pennsylvania dollars issued by Pennsylvania banks, and if they had unequal values you can see the problem (in terms of "interstate commerce", especially). The purpose of this clause was to prevent Virginia and Pennsylvania from entering into a "currency war" at the banking level, where banks would compete for customers by devaluing the currency. Similarly, if you could pay a debt in Virginia it could cost you either twice as much or half as much as if you paid it in Pennsylvania.


The section specifically cites gold and silver. We agree that it is to place coining money under federal control, but legal tender in this republic is _gold and silver_.

----------


## Oskar

> No, it wasn't Reconstruction, it was *Lincoln*.


There would be no need for reconstruction if not for the actions of Lincoln.

----------


## Oskar

> And the reason for it was, because Lincoln had borrowed money from the Russians and he couldn't pay it back.


Always the Russkie's fault.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Ah
> 
> A Kool-Aid drinking sovereign.
> 
> Driver's licenses are issued by the STATES and hence not subject to the Constitution.
> 
> Those morons were "travelling".
> 
> Those morons were also operating a motor vehicle, a matter not addressed by the Constitution directly and hence covered by Amendments Nine and Ten.


Yeah, it's a tricky thing though, when you start looking at the legalities of "jurisdiction". Oskar is "technically correct", the federal highways are technically on federal land, and therefore federal law applies. It's the same as if they catch you smoking pot in a post office, the minute you step into that post office you're on federal land and therefore federal laws apply, and if they catch you you're going to jail regardless of any medical marijuana laws in your state and regardless of any permits you may have. You'll also notice that there's a different force policing the highways than police the surface streets, the "state police" gets the federal highways. :eyebrow:

----------


## Oskar

> Are you really saying you're so ignorant you believe this is a matter open to debate?
> 
> Go away, again, troll.


If you are saying that the states are not covered under the U.S. Constitution, then I am definitely going to debate that misapprehension on your part.

If a troll is someone who accurately states the facts as they are, I plead guilty.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I agree. 
> 
> I am a soveriegn citizen of California.


Yeah. There's a lot of disagreement about the 14th Amendment.

The weirdest thing in "my" eyes is the SCOTUS's twisted view of "incorporation", they did it piecemeal instead of all at once as intended.


But um.... you're sure you want to be a citizen of California, eh?  :Wink:

----------


## Oskar

> But um.... you're sure you want to be a citizen of California, eh?


California is the land of my birth.

I don't want to be a citizen of California, but I currently am and will be until I am prepared to go home.

----------


## Oskar

Most courts in the U.S. are admiralty courts and have no jurisdiction over 99% of the matters they handle.

You can identify an admiralty court by looking at the flag in the courtroom. If it has gold fringe, then it is in an admiralty law court.

----------


## Oskar

All crimes are commercial.




> If this is a criminal charge you have the ‘right’ to demandto know how you became ‘liable’ for the alleged debt to society, or to face the charges , ie.money owed-it’sall about money see U.S.>CFR 72.11 ‘all crimes are commercial’. Unless they can show points and authorities which are statute law, case law which are judgments in court decisions, any contract you have violated, etc. you are NOT liable and their charges are FALSE and fraud and an attempt at extortion. If 3 or more are in collusion, the legal definition of which is to deny your rights, the charges would be 
> racketeering to try and extort fraudulent claims against you.


Learn UCC 1-308.




> If you fail to show upat court it is a default judgment. So don’t be in dishonor and question the charge or debt owed. In thesimplest form is would be making a photo copy of the original ‘presentment’ (traffic ticket, court summons, Notice of Default (foreclosure)) and writing in red pen diagonally across it “refused for cause” “per UCC 1-308” then qualify your signature by putting “without prejudice” (this retains all your rights and without ityou lose your rights) then “ By:” to the left of your signature and then your signature and below your signature “authorized representative”. If your all capital lettered name is on the presentment, i.e. JOHN H.DOE then that is a ens legis, legal fiction (not living soul) and you are the authorized representative of thatcorporate fiction, see UCC 3-402


 
The Courts Are Not the Government and Have No Authority Lawfully Over You | Arrest | United States Constitution

----------


## Sled Dog

Wow.

Those people have their own special Peyote flavored Kool-Aid, with lots and lots of lead and arsenic sweetener to maximize the brain damage.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I agree. 
> 
> I am a soveriegn citizen of California.



No, California has no citizens.  Only residents.

What part of "the Fourteenth Amendment created thousands of retards" did you fail to understand?

----------


## Sled Dog

> There would be no need for reconstruction if not for the actions of Lincoln.



True.

The nation would have been destroyed without Lincoln, who held it together despite the efforts of the sovereign citizens to destroy it.

----------


## Iron

> I never chose to become part of that corporation.


Then renounce your citizenship and get out, faggot.

----------


## Iron

> Most courts in the U.S. are admiralty courts and have no jurisdiction over 99% of the matters they handle.


If they have no authority to handle the matters they handle then why do they handle the matters they handle, faggot?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> oh mine too..i was just going to post it.   He has this poor guy so confused at the end it is hilarious.


This guy is totally insane.

----------


## pinqy

> There is no constitutional power for the federal government to print paper money. .


Then why does the Constitution give Congress the power to punish counterfeiting of "securities" which is what Federal Reserve Notes are?

----------


## pinqy

> All crimes are commercial.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn UCC 1-308.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts Are Not the Government and Have No Authority Lawfully Over You | Arrest | United States Constitution


And when has that argument ever worked?

----------


## pinqy

> Most courts in the U.S. are admiralty courts and have no jurisdiction over 99% of the matters they handle.
> 
> You can identify an admiralty court by looking at the flag in the courtroom. If it has gold fringe, then it is in an admiralty law court.


That is a myth. Nothing in U.S. law or tradition supports that.

----------


## pinqy

> All crimes are commercial.


 Not according to CFR 72.11
_Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State):
Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime._

So that's not "all crimes," is it?



> Learn UCC 1-308.


I have:  § 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights. 

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

Perhaps you are not familiar with UCC 1-102
§ 1-102. Scope of Article.
 This article applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of the Uniform Commercial Code.





> The Courts Are Not the Government and Have No Authority Lawfully Over You | Arrest | United States Constitution


And when has that argument ever worked?  And what has happened to everyone who has used that argument?

----------


## 2cent

Jumping ahead about 8 pages...

JFTR, just because I question the Constitutionality of a law, doesn't mean I have any intentions of not following said law.  It doesn't even mean that I desire the law to be changed, much less abolished.  
If you don't question, you don't learn.  If you don't learn, you can't fix what's broken.

I do know of a woman who was ticketed for driving w/o a license, and took it to court.  It was so long ago, I forget what her argument was, but she won.  I found that interesting.

According to some people, finding something interesting, and worthy of a little more study automatically brands you as an anarchist, too stupid to learn, or follow simple rules.
Jump to conclusions much?

----------

Oskar (09-20-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> No, it wasn't Reconstruction, it was *Lincoln*. It was the National Currency Act of 1862 and 1864, which is the first time ever that banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral. And the reason for it was, because Lincoln had borrowed money from the Russians and he couldn't pay it back. And he needed more to pursue and conclude the war. Lincoln created the "greenback", not the Supreme Court.


My purpose for using the Reconstruction Congress was that even though the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and the Legal Tender Act of 1863 were created under Lincoln, the Supreme Court struck down the acts for violating the Constitution with Hepburn v. Griswold (1870). The ruling riled up Grant; he immediately nominated Joseph Bradley and William Strong to the Supreme Court. The two were quickly confirmed and appointed, and the Reconstruction Supreme Court immediately overturned_ Hepburn v. Griswold_ with _Knox v. Lee_ and _Parker v. Davis_.

----------

excalibur (09-20-2017),Oskar (09-20-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Then why does the Constitution give Congress the power to punish counterfeiting of "securities" which is what Federal Reserve Notes are?


You are referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 8, Clause 6:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Securities were not Federal Reserve notes. There was no Federal Reserve in 1787, and there was not a hint of a federal bank in 1787. Federal Reserve notes were not created until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Securities were credit or stock in the United States. The concern during the debates regarding securities was a violation of international comity by counterfeiting foreign securities or paper notes. Securities and Coin are separate items. 

There are two better questions: why was the last paper money printed on June 25, 1776, and did not make a reappearance until 1861? And why was paper money explicitly removed from a draft of the Constitution? Even though the details were debated heavily on June 15, 1787, the reasons for not printing paper money took up many days of the convention.

----------

Oskar (09-20-2017)

----------


## Oskar

"OSKAR" is a fictional entity. I am the authorized representative of the person Oskar.

----------


## Oskar

> True.
> 
> The nation would have been destroyed without Lincoln, who held it together despite the efforts of the sovereign citizens to destroy it.


If he held it together then it would not have had to be reconstructed. 

You sound very close to endorsing a fundamental change of America, because a lord and master says it should be fundamentally changed.

----------


## Oskar

> No, California has no citizens.  Only residents.


I am a state citizen, not a fake 14th Amendment citizen.

Where I live, Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnel is the legitimately elected official.

----------


## Oskar

> Then renounce your citizenship and get out, faggot.





> If they have no authority to handle the matters they handle then why do they handle the matters they handle, faggot?


Calling people you don't know "faggot"? 

Are you trying to tell us you are lonely for some same sex "companionship"?

----------


## Oskar

To address @Iron's comment and question:

(a) Renounce what citizenship? I am a California state citizen, and have no problem with being one so long as I remain in the state. I may wish to be a citizen of another state, but that will have to wait.

(b) The courts have _de facto_ jurisdiction over certain matters because the people have become ignorant and lazy and not taken action to prevent the judicial system from devolving into corruption and tyranny.

----------


## pinqy

> You are referring to Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 8, Clause 6:
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


 
Correct.



> Securities were not Federal Reserve notes. There was no Federal Reserve in 1787, and there was not a hint of a federal bank in 1787. Federal Reserve notes were not created until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.


  But that doesn't mean Federal Reserve notes are not securities.  Do you also want to argue that semi-automatic pistols are not "arms" because they didn't exist in 1789?




> Securities were credit or stock in the United States.


As are Federal Reserve notes. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"  It does this by selling Treasury Securities to the public.  The FED buys some of these securities and issues Federal Reserve Notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 




> There are two better questions: why was the last paper money printed on June 25, 1776, and did not make a reappearance until 1861?


Because Continental dollars were worthless and created a general distrust of paper currency, and because there was no central bank to issue them.  Individual banks certainly could and did issue bank notes until 1932. 




> And why was paper money explicitly removed from a draft of the Constitution? Even though the details were debated heavily on June 15, 1787, the reasons for not printing paper money took up many days of the convention.


 That, I don't know. My guess would be the distrust of the Continental dollar and lack of central bank.

----------


## Tennyson

> Correct.[/INDENT]
> 
>   But that doesn't mean Federal Reserve notes are not securities.  Do you also want to argue that semi-automatic pistols are not "arms" because they didn't exist in 1789?
> 
> 
> As are Federal Reserve notes. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"  It does this by selling Treasury Securities to the public.  The FED buys some of these securities and issues Federal Reserve Notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
> 
> 
> Because Continental dollars were worthless and created a general distrust of paper currency, and because there was no central bank to issue them.  Individual banks certainly could and did issue bank notes until 1932. 
> ...





> But that doesn't mean Federal Reserve notes are not securities. Do you also want to argue that semi-automatic pistols are not "arms" because they didn't exist in 1789?


That argument is not valid. The term arms in the Second Amendment was not descriptive of arms _per se,_ as it was a limiter on the federal government, but if you want to make that argument, arms were what could be carried. Moreover, semi-automatic weapons did exist in 1791.

The argument is the constitutionality of paper money. It is not in the Constitution and was taken out of a draft of the Constitution. What Federal Reserve notes are today is irrelevant to eighteenth century history. Securities were credit or stock in the United States. 




> As are Federal Reserve notes. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" It does this by selling Treasury Securities to the public. The FED buys some of these securities and issues Federal Reserve Notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and signed by the Secretary of the Treasury.


I have explained what the definition of a security was in 1787 and the purpose of the clause regarding foreign securities being counterfeited.  Your bouncing around between clause 1, 5, and 5 does not make your argument anymore valid. You are referencing twentieth century protocol regarding Treasury Securities and the creation of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 1861. Stick to the eighteenth century. 

I will let you explain how the War of 1812 was financed. 




> Because Continental dollars were worthless and created a general distrust of paper currency, and because there was no central bank to issue them. Individual banks certainly could and did issue bank notes until 1932.


That is not why, but you did substantiate my argument for why the Founders rejected paper money in the Constitution. 

And why was paper money explicitly removed from a draft of the Constitution? Even though the details were debated heavily on June 15, 1787, the reasons for not printing paper money took up many days of the convention. 

That, I don't know. My guess would be the distrust of the Continental dollar and lack of central bank

Here are a few examples of why paper money was removed from a draft of the Constitution:

*Randolph:*

In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them, as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies,- when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown-no commercial discord had arisen among any states-no rebellion had appeared as in Massts.-foreign debts had not become urgent-the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen-treaties had not been violated-and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.
*Madison:*

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit [inconvertible paper money] must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it.
*William Turner:*

I think that the operation of paper money, and the practice of privateering, have produced a gradual decay of moralsintroduced prideambitionenvylust of powerproduced a decay of patriotism, and the love of commutative justice; and I am apprehensive of these are the invariable concomitants of the luxury, in which we are unblessedly involved, almost to our total destruction.
*Oliver Elsworth:*

He thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power to emit bills of credit may do harm, never good.
Now you can provide the Founders who were pro paper money and an alternate example of why paper money was removed from a draft of the Constitution.

----------

Oskar (09-20-2017)

----------


## pinqy

> "OSKAR" is a fictional entity. I am the authorized representative of the person Oskar.


Now, point out the relevant law, regulation, treaty, directive, anything, that supports the claim that capitalization of a name makes any kind of distinction. 



> I am a state citizen, not a fake 14th Amendment citizen.


Citizen of the United States was recognized as applying to the citizens of the individual states in the Constitution:
Article I Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

And of course, Dred Scott v Sandford:
Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of  the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws.  But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

The 14th amendment nullified that decision, but did not create a new or different class of citizen. And while the Scott decision did declare a difference between citizen of a state and citizen of the United States, that was only in regard to foreigners or others not recognized as citizens under the constitution.  For example, a state has the right to allow foreigners to vote in state elections for state officials.

----------


## Oskar

In the case of the first video involving the LEO's, the sovereign citizens should not be talking to the cops.

NEVER TALK TO A COP.

They are going to do whatever their lords and masters tell them to o so long as the direct deposits keep showing up in their bank account twice a month.

If that means that they will uphold the corrupt system, then you will get no where trying to convince them that the system is corrupt on the street.

You are the source of the tax dollars that fund the direct deposit but it is the elites who control the corrupt system that cause the deposits to be made.

Always follow the money.

Take the citation to court, appear in honor there, and expose the corrupt system.

You may not win, but that is only because the system is corrupt.

----------


## Oskar

In the case of the second video, with the guy in court, he appeared in honor.

However, he should have never been in court for the charges to which he was answering.

There is a right to travel, but it does not mean that you can be impaired.

SC's who drink and drive give sovereign citizens a bad name.

----------


## Dan40

> In the case of the first video involving the LEO's, the sovereign citizens should not be talking to the cops.
> 
> NEVER TALK TO A COP.
> 
> They are going to do whatever their lords and masters tell them to o so long as the direct deposits keep showing up in their bank account twice a month.
> 
> If that means that they will uphold the corrupt system, then you will get no where trying to convince them that the system is corrupt on the street.
> 
> You are the source of the tax dollars that fund the direct deposit but it is the elites who control the corrupt system that cause the deposits to be made.
> ...


Juvenile nonsense.

Find an idiotic conspiracy theory forum.  They love juvenile nonsense.

----------


## Oskar

> Juvenile nonsense.


You don't think that people should appear in honor in court?

----------


## Oskar

> Find an idiotic conspiracy theory forum.  They love juvenile nonsense.


What is juvenile and conspiratorial about telling people not to argue with cops on the street?

----------


## Dan40

> You don't think that people should appear in honor in court?


Try explaining, LEGALLY, what you imagine that means.

----------


## Dan40

> What is juvenile and conspiratorial about telling people not to argue with cops on the street?


You post was DO NOT TALK TO COPS.  That is juvenile.

I recommended you visit a conspiracy theory forum as they love juvenile nonsense.  I made no claim your post was conspiratorial.

Perhaps a remedial reading course would help all around?

If you were speeding, you either KNOW you were speeding or you are a severe danger to everyone else on the road.  I've paid many speeding tickets.  Never was there any question about the FACT that I was speeding.  No need to take up the court's time with juvenile nonsense.

And driving a motor vehicle on a public road has NOTHING to do with TRAVEL.  NOTHING!

----------


## Oskar

> Try explaining, LEGALLY, what you imagine that means.


Appearing in court when summoned.

----------


## Oskar

> You post was DO NOT TALK TO COPS.  That is juvenile.
> 
> I recommended you visit a conspiracy theory forum as they love juvenile nonsense.  I made no claim your post was conspiratorial.
> 
> Perhaps a remedial reading course would help all around?
> 
> If you were speeding, you either KNOW you were speeding or you are a severe danger to everyone else on the road.  I've paid many speeding tickets.  Never was there any question about the FACT that I was speeding.  No need to take up the court's time with juvenile nonsense.
> 
> And driving a motor vehicle on a public road has NOTHING to do with TRAVEL.  NOTHING!


In the scenario you described above, what reason would there to be to talk to the cop and why would refraining from speaking to them be juvenile?

----------


## Dan40

> In the scenario you described above, what reason would there to be to talk to the cop and why would refraining from speaking to them be juvenile?


Asking the question precludes understanding the answer.

----------


## Dan40

> Appearing in court when summoned.


People appear in court when summoned fully prepared to lie.  

Your answer is "appearing in honor," means you show up as REQUIRED.  With or without any honor.

The phrase, "appear in honor," has no legal standing.

----------


## Oskar

> Your answer is "appearing in honor," means you show up as REQUIRED.  With or without any honor.
> 
> The phrase, "appear in honor," has no legal standing.


You are reading way to much into this.

I'll have you know that I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Appearing in honor means showing up when summoned.

----------


## Oskar

> Asking the question precludes understanding the answer.


All you have to do is sit there and sign the citation. 

Really, what kind of conversation would you be having with the cop?

Do you think that people should argue with the cop?

----------


## Dan40

> All you have to do is sit there and sign the citation. 
> Really, what kind of conversation would you be having with the cop.
> 
> I make a post saying not to argue with cops in a thread that is probably critical of sovereign citizens, and you have a problem with it?
> 
> Why?


Experience, knowledge, wisdom, common sense, and a lack of paranoia.

But you are free to do whatever you wish to piss off the guy with the radio, the gun, the mace,  handcuffs, legal authority, and the club.  Your business, not mine.

Note that I have never had a hard time with any officer.  Your mileage must vary.

----------


## Oskar

> Experience, knowledge, wisdom, common sense, and a lack of paranoia.


So what would conversation with a traffic cop be like?

Walk us through it.

----------


## Dan40

> So what would conversation with a traffic cop be like?
> 
> Walk us through it.


You persist with the juvenile nonsense.

----------


## Oskar

> But you are free to do whatever you wish to piss off the guy with the radio, the gun, the mace,  handcuffs, legal authority, and the club.  Your business, not mine.
> 
> Note that I have never had a hard time with any officer.  Your mileage must vary.


How would I be pissing him off by keeping my mouth shut and signing the citation?

You _are_ saying that people should argue with cops, aren't you?

I strongly disagree, which was my point.

Take it court and show up in honor when summoned.

----------


## Oskar

> You persist with the juvenile nonsense.


You are the one saying that people should engage in a conversation with the cop rather than being quiet and signing the citation.

About what?

----------


## Oskar

> People appear in court when summoned fully prepared to lie.


Prosecutors and police officers appearing as witnesses?

This is true.

----------


## Dan40

> You are the one saying that people should engage in a conversation with the cop rather than being quiet and signing the citation.
> 
> About what?


You are extremely flexible about your posts.  What you posted is there for all to read.  Don't lie or back pedal.

You said DON'T TALK TO THE COPS.

That is completely different from "engaging in  a conversation with the cop."  Words NEVER posted by me.  So another lie by you.  You may change your words are often as you wish to be foolish, but DO NOT try to claim anything I posted that I did not.What you DO with the cop, is act like an adult.  You could look that up.

You cannot escape your juvenile nonsense, too bad.

----------


## Oskar

> You said DON'T TALK TO THE COPS.


I know what I said, and I meant it. 
I am criticizing the SC's in the video who were arguing with the cop.

You keep your mouth shut, appear in honor in court, and tell it to the judge.

Do you disagree?

----------


## pinqy

> Appearing in court when summoned.


Then in what way is "appearing in honor" different from "appearing?"  I've done some searching and I can't find anything that shows a distinction.

----------


## Oskar

> Then in what way is "appearing in honor" different from "appearing?"  I've done some searching and I can't find anything that shows a distinction.


If the judge issued a bench warrant and you were dragged into court, that would be appearing in dishonor.

----------


## pinqy

> If the judge issued a bench warrant and you were dragged into court, that would be appearing in dishonor.


Ok, so there's not actually any legal or practical difference between the two.  So using the words "in honor" is entirely superfluous.

----------


## Oskar

> Ok, so there's not actually any legal or practical difference between the two.  So using the words "in honor" is entirely superfluous.


No, not at all. I told you the difference.

----------


## Oskar

In this hearing, the SC informs the judge that he is appearing in honor.

From 1:35-1:40

Also 5:18-5:28




I may be too generous calling the guy a judge. Early on the authorized representative of the legal entity Steven Johnson asks the guy if he is a lawful judge, and he says that he is an administrative hearing officer.

----------


## Oskar

You will note that I do not call myself Mr. Oskar. When you put "Mr." in front of anything, that denotes a corporation. Your name in all caps (like a birth certificate, drivers license, or Social Slavery card) is a corporation.

We are not corporations, we are living beings.

----------


## Dan40

> I know what I said, and I meant it. 
> I am criticizing the SC's in the video who were arguing with the cop.
> 
> You keep your mouth shut, appear in honor in court, and tell it to the judge.
> 
> Do you disagree?


IF you meant _Don't argue with the cops_, you should have posted that instead of DON'T TALK TO THE COPS.

Find someone to explain the difference, I'm  bored with your back pedalings.

I completely agree,  _Don't argue with the cops_, it is just stupid and will not win.

And the words, "appear in honor" do not mean anything in the law.  Just superfluous nonsense.

----------


## pinqy

> No, not at all. I told you the difference.


Yes, you did. But the difference has no practical effect on anything as far as I can tell.

 Defendant A voluntarily appears before court and declares he is there "in honor." 
Defendant B voluntarily appears but does not declare "in honor."  
And Defendant C was stopped on a traffic violation, his warrant was discovered and he was arrested and taken to court.

How are you claiming the three cases will be handled differently by the court? That's the part I'm not getting.

----------


## pinqy

> You will note that I do not call myself Mr. Oskar. When you put "Mr." in front of anything, that denotes a corporation. Your name in all caps (like a birth certificate, drivers license, or Social Slavery card) is a corporation.


I'm sorry...could you point to the State laws that declare that?  Or the law that created the Federal charter that establishes this?  Hell, or anything that supports these ideas.

----------


## Dan40

> I'm sorry...could you point to the State laws that declare that?  Or the law that created the Federal charter that establishes this?  Hell, or anything that supports these ideas.


Read "The Paranoia Papers."

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## patrickt

I've been there and don't remember once laughing.

----------


## Oskar

> I completely agree,  _Don't argue with the cops_, it is just stupid and will not win.


Then what are you arguing about? Do you just like to argue?

If you don't talk to the cops (you have a right to remain silent) then you can't argue with the cops AND you protect your rights.

Any good attorney will tell you to not talk to the police, because anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

The cops are not your friends. They work for the state.

----------


## Dan40

> Then what are you arguing about? Do you just like to argue?
> 
> If you don't talk to the cops (you have a right to remain silent) then you can't argue with the cops AND you protect your rights.
> 
> Any good attorney will tell you to not talk to the police, because anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
> 
> The cops are not your friends. They work for the state.


The state is us, at least the non-paranoid us.

And yes, I love to argue and am very adept at arguing.  I do not back pedal and rationalize what I've posted like some obviously (YOU) do.

When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong.  Same as when stopped by a cop and I KNOW I was speeding, no sense in arguing and I'm prepared to pay the fine.

Do you know that speeding 12 MPH over the posted limit is cause for arrest and detention?  Got that tidbit from last required Driving school.  But have never been arrested, just got a ticket even tho well more than 12 mph over the posted limit.  WHY?  I converse respectfully with the officers.  I do that because I know they have to spend most of 8 hours listening to complete dumb shits spouting off about non-existent laws and privileges, and mentioning pseudo laws that are juvenile nonsense.

----------


## Oskar

> I converse respectfully with the officers.


What do you talk about?

----------


## Oskar

> Do you know that speeding 12 MPH over the posted limit is cause for arrest and detention?


You must live in a small county that really needs the bail money.

If they tried that here there would be nowhere to put them. Heck, they already let jail inmates out early because the county jail is overcrowded, especially since Moonbeam tried solving the state prison overcrowding problem by sending felons to the county jails.

----------

